PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 20, 2009 at 11:00 PM
-
First of all, I'd like to clarify that I am not an atheist. I'm a (semi)-practicing Catholic (although just two steps away from being agnostic).
I'm creating this post because I saw that Richard Dawkins' famous atheist book The God Delusion is readily available in local bookstores and I was wondering if, like in Europe, atheism/agnosticism in the Philippines is becoming just a tad more mainstream.
Do we have any atheists/agnostics on the board and are you open about it in real life?
-
I haven't gone to Holy Mass since last year and before that didn't go to Holy Mass for years. Yet I live a more ethical/moral life than those I know who goes to any sort of service.
I personally do not see anything wrong with being atheist/agnostic just dont be like those other Christians who preach/evangelize their beliefs whenever they have the chance to do so. Because honestly, if I really wanted to hear your crap I'd go visit your place of worship. Most cracks lapsed former Catholics turned Christians have is that the RC hierarchy are a bunch of NAMBLA members. This phenomena isn't isolated to Catholics there are a number of reported instances of preachers and ministers who love the flesh of young boys. Only diff is we Catholics get more press.
I think atheist/agnostics should try to keep to an ethical/moral standard that isn't too disgusting. At the end of the day religion shouldn't be mistaken for morality and their lives should reflect how much better it be. :-*
Richard Dawinks appeared on this South Park episode http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800
-
Whenever there's an election coming up, the Cardinal would always issue an encyclical letter advising people on how to choose a candidate. The number one quality is that s/he must have a fear of God. In other words, s/he MUST be religious, as if being atheist or agnostic means that you are devoid of morals and you can't be a leader. But a lot of the most corrupt, most vile trapos in our government are self-proclaimed devout Catholics. So I don't know what they're talking about.
I also have to say that an atheist with good moral values and does good deeds is far more admirable than a religious person who only does it because he desires heaven and fears hell.
-
I do not blame religious leaders for this. I blame the spineless flock that can't think for themselves. :)
Price we pay for sticking to Filipino values but I hope the Internet with terabytes worth of pornography and free thought will influence new voters to go against the flow and do better.
-
these are totally different topics. Agonisticism and atheism are completely different--I strongly suggest that you stick to one topic only.
-
Just change the / to a &. ;D
-
Though I may not agree with everything the religious say & do this doesn't dissuade me from my faith. It just emboldens me to make my own decision about important issues.
I only take what they say under advisement. I'm free to either take it or leave it. ;)
Unfortunately the vast majority of Pinoys relish the idea that they are sheep thus are easily bent to the will of the Cloth.
-
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hozwvWQkL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
A 2008 independent documentary directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein, about the mainstream science establishment's persecution of academics who dare criticize the evolutionary theory.
YouTube:
Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh35qLYM424&feature=related
O'Reilly interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLuj1705u24&feature=related
Richard Dawkins:
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
Gillian Brown's response: http://theismbeatsatheism.blogspot.com/2007/09/richard-dawkins-caught-on-hop.html
-
these are totally different topics. Agonisticism and atheism are completely different--I strongly suggest that you stick to one topic only.
Yes, I know that they're different but they're both examples of free-thinking/secular thought.
Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?
-
Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?
I don't think so.
Filipino atheists, meron. Famous Filipino atheist, wala. :D
Even Joma Sison (Communist Party of the Philippines founder) believes in God, I think.
Kahit nga Tagalog word for atheist, wala yata, if you exclude the Spanish words ateista or ateo.
-
Kahit semi-famous man lang. Like a writer or a columnist.
-
there is no tagalog word for atheist bec our ancestors believe in god/gods e.g anitos, gods of nature. etc
-
there is no tagalog word for atheist bec our ancestors believe in god/gods e.g anitos, gods of nature. etc
That's why Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are big hits here while Star Trek and science fiction don't play well. :)
-
Kahit semi-famous man lang. Like a writer or a columnist.
Pinoys prefer you worship the Devil than not believe in anything at all. :'(
-
That's why Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are big hits here while Star Trek and science fiction don't play well. :)
I don't see how the box office performance of these movies relates to Filipino religious beliefs. There's just no direct relationship between public appeal and religiosity for the abovementioned films.
Anyway, I would expect the bulk of Filipino atheists to hail from communists and academics. Communists because they do not believe in individualism, something upheld by most religions; and academics (particularly scientists) because rationality dictates the necessity of proof that a supreme being exists. But since Filipinos are generally deeply rooted to tradition, even most people from these groups uphold sectarian beliefs despite these being essentially in contradiction to, say, scientific logic or communistic ideology. Commonly, these people whom one would expect to be atheists, belong to some kind of religion without giving any thought on the implications that their faith have on the integrity of their ideology/philosophy. Besides, it is less bothersome this way, and for this reason atheism is not a popular thinking in the Philippines.
As for the "grey" people, the agnostic theists - those who choose to stay in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum (on one end being the religious faithful and the atheists on the other), it might even be rarer to encounter such people who will truly spend time to reconcile between blind faith and hard logic, as this would entail deep thought and understanding of both the physical and metaphysical, which most Filipinos do not have the luxury of time and patience to spend on. It is easier to have blind faith or surrender to the natural order of things, than to find a strong foothold on a belief system that balances the two.
-
I don't see how the box office performance of these movies relates to Filipino religious beliefs. There's just no direct relationship between public appeal and religiosity for the abovementioned films.
People don't watch things they cannot relate too. Does country music sell as well as the latest from Britney here in the Philippines?
-
Well, had you chosen The Da Vinci Code or The Passion of the Christ as your examples, it might have been clearer. But Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings vs. Star Trek? Even in the United States films of those two franchises grossed better than the latter. I do not "blame" religious inclinations for the relatively weaker (compared to the two) performance of Star Trek here and in the United States (or for the rest of the world). I blame the people's perception that the movie would only be appreciated by sci-fi nerds and geeks.
-
Just want to make clear that I'm not starting a debate, but just want hear your thoughts/opinion.
Have read before that a person cannot be really classified as an "atheist"... but agnostic yes. The argument was about making an absolute claim that there is no God. Absolute in terms of a person knows everything that he/she needs to know for him/her to make an absolute statement or claim. Otherwise, that's agnosticism. Again, that's according to the article i've read. Unfortunately, it was a very long time ago and I can't even remember if it's a printed material or an online one ;D. Honestly, I tend to believe in that.
Peace and Cheers!!!
Compaq
-
Sana may candidate sa election who will publicly acknowledge to be an atheist or agnostic, and wins!
-
this is a dangerous thread.
I don't like to be moralistic here but if you don't believe in God, then what is your anchor? do you think you will have positive values if you do not anchor it in someone higher than ourselves? i don't think so.
let's not be swayed by the things we see and hear everyday. because the Devil can also pose as a beautiful, sensual, wonderful, great deceiver.
with the demise of Cory, i understand more how it is to have a Godly life.
my 2 cents.. ;D
-
Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?
raymundo punongbayan of philvocs is one.
-
raymundo punongbayan of philvocs is one.
he's dead already. was he given the last rites when he died?
-
this is a dangerous thread.
I don't like to be moralistic here but if you don't believe in God, then what is your anchor? do you think you will have positive values if you do not anchor it in someone higher than ourselves? i don't think so.
let's not be swayed by the things we see and hear everyday. because the Devil can also pose as a beautiful, sensual, wonderful, great deceiver.
with the demise of Cory, i understand more how it is to have a Godly life.
my 2 cents.. ;D
Not really....
Buddhism does not advocate belief in Gods and considered atheistic, however, they are ther most peaceful individuals in this world and would not even disrupt ants foraging for food.
...on the other hand, the Inca civilization, the Jews and even the early Christians advocates violence and human sacrifice to their gods(and most of the time for trivial reason)
BTW....the contention is a true Atheist does not believe in God, thus he does not believe in the devil.
Another thing, there is such a book called Postive Atheism by Gora, an Indian who have witnessed the cruelty and atrocities in the name of religion in India.
-
Not really....
Buddhism does not advocate belief in Gods and considered atheistic, however, they are ther most peaceful individuals in this world and would not even disrupt ants foraging for food.
...on the other hand, the Inca civilization, the Jews and even the early Christians advocates violence and human sacrifice to their gods(and most of the time for trivial reason)
BTW....the contention is a true Atheist does not believe in God, thus he does not believe in the devil.
Another thing, there is such a book called Postive Atheism by Gora, an Indian who have witnessed the cruelty and atrocities in the name of religion in India.
Buddhism is still believing in someone larger than yourself. hence, the values are anchored on something positive.
However, as long as there is an anchor is what you believe in, then it's fine with me. What matters is that we live accordingly to the values and virtues that we believe in a positive way.
:D
-
Taken from the "life being an atheist" thread from TPC.
FAQ by "DarthDract"
What is an atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in deities or gods.
Isn’t atheism a religion?
No. A religion can be described as a group of people who worship a deity and subscribe to an organized set of dogma or beliefs usually encoded into a “sacred” tome.
Atheists have no existing codified belief system for atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods and deities.
Is atheism the same as agnosticism?
Yes and no. Agnosticism in the widest sense is the view that we do not know if there's a god or not. This view is compatible with negative/weak atheism. However, to be an agnostic may also mean believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible because of the limitations of the human mind.
A person becomes an atheist because of a bad experience he/she blames on god.
While this statement is true to some, it does not apply to all.
There are said to be four different kinds of atheists. Those who are merely rebelling, those who experienced a tragedy, those who inherited it from their parents, and those who “found” their way to atheism.
The first and the second are not considered to be real atheists since they do so only out of a sense of rebellion and depression. These are the “atheists” who return to belief.
The third and the fourth are the ones considered as main-line or true atheists.
Atheists are devil worshippers.
No. We don't believe in god/gods or devils/demons. How can we worship what we do not believe in?
Atheists are evil because they don’t believe in god.
It is a misconception that a person needs to believe in a deity in order to be good. The fact is, even belief in the supernatural doesn’t prevent many people from committing crimes.
A person can be good even without belief in the supernatural. Morality and laws, afterall, are not rooted in religion but in the community’s concepts of what is acceptable and right. It varies from place to place but their core is always the same: that which would protect a person’s life and well-being.
Following the laws and acting in the socially accepted manner is already enough for people to call you a good person.
Atheists hate believers and take every opportunity to attack their beliefs.
We don’t hate believers. What we hate is the intolerance some believers direct at us.
We respect what other people believe and we have no problem if someone says they believe in a supreme being or beings. Many of us have family or relatives who are devout believers. We have no problems socializing with people who subscribe to a faith system.
But when someone uses that belief to attack, condemn, harass, or insult us, or when someone tries to impose their own beliefs on us, we tend to retaliate - mostly in the form of invalidating what they use to attack us, in the first place.
Atheism is responsible for atrocities such as the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Killing Fields, etc.
This is patently un-true.
There have been many who have blamed atheism for some of the worst crimes against humanity. However, such acts were never done in the name of atheism.
Simple research shows that these were done for reasons ranging from Communism to political revolutions. Atheism was never the reason given to justify such acts. One of the justifications for the Holocaust, for example, was the christian dogma of jews being christ-killers. The Killing fields and the Russian Gulag were the results of communist ideology.
When faced with this, some say that communism is the same as atheism. Again, this is not so. While communists implemented state atheism, it did so to further the cause of communism, not atheism. To them, religion was contrary to the communist society and so sought for its abolishment. As stated in wikipedia:
According to Karl Marx the founder of the communist ideology, religion is a tool utilised by the ruling classes whereby the masses can briefly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their non-Communist economic system. It is often thought that it was in the sense that what Marx advocated, that religion is used to control people, and that it was the "opium of the people". That this is and was the main reason that certain communist regimes past and present curtail religious freedom and ban religion altogether because they consider it a suppressive, subversive set of guidelines, and thereby attached the charge of sedition to certain religions.
Do atheists celebrate Christmas?
Most of us do. Not because it's Jesus' birthday (it isn't), but because of tradition and the chance to be with loved ones. The proper questions are:
Why do Christians celebrate the Winter Solstice (Dec 25) which is a pagan holiday? Why do Christians put up Christmas trees, which is a pagan symbol?
Denying the existence of god(s) actually confirms the existence of god.
Denying the existence of god(s) only confirms the existence of the CONCEPT of god. We all know the general concept of a god (a supreme being who has power over all of us, etc), that's why we can deny it's existence.
Besides, if the statement above were true, then Christians should confirm the existence of Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Thor, etc., and vice versa. Adults will also confirm the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Atheists cannot disprove the existence of god(s).
Another logical fallacy. Atheists are under no obligation to disprove the existence of god(s). The burden of proof rests on those who make the claim of the existence of god(s).
Let’s say I tell everyone that I have a computer whose monitor is encased in solid platinum, whose system unit is contained in a case made of titanium, with buttons are made of blue diamonds, a mouse made of solid gold, a keyboard of pure silver, speakers made of ivory, and is capable of running for five days on a single 1.5 volt AA battery.
Does the fact that you can’t disprove my claim make it true?
Or does the fact that I can’t even show it to anybody prove that it’s a lie?
Atheists have just never tried to find God.
On the contrary, a lot of people became atheists because of their search for god. It’s just that they found no evidence to support the claims of religion.
This can be clearly seen in the tendency of atheists to know a lot about the myths of (different) religion(s).
Atheists have no purpose in life.
Another misconception. Atheists do not see religion as the purpose of life. Family, friends, goals and aspirations, even ideals of creating a better world are things that atheists see as being purposes to live. Reasons to better themselves and to reach their utmost potential.
It is better to just believe since it guarantees you eternal rewards.
This statement is known as Pascal’s Wager. It goes thus:
If you believe in god and it turns out there is none, you gain nothing and you lose nothing.
If you don’t believe and it turns out he is real, you gain nothing and you lose everything.
So it’s better to just believe.
The first problem with this logic can be summed up in one question: Which god should you believe in?
In our world where there are tens of thousands of deities being worshipped, how do you know that you are indeed worshipping the right one? Remember that each religion holds that it is the true religion and that following a different religion or god ensures your eternal damnation.
The second problem is: If indeed it was your god that is real, do you think your god would be pleased that you just believed in him as a form of insurance?
Believing for the sake of believing in something “just in case…” is not something that is considered as true belief.
The only logical basis for atheism is to know everything — in other words, to be God!
Some theists also love to use the statement that to be an atheist, one has to have seen or known everything in order to say “There is no god” – that one has to be omniscient to disprove god. If that were the case, atheists would have to be god to disprove god.
Unfortunately, this statement makes two general misconceptions:
First, atheists declare that they don’t believe in god – not that there is no god.
The position of atheists is that they don’t believe in god(s) due to there being no real proof or evidence of the existence of god(s) – not because they know everything.
Second, it is not the responsibility of atheists to disprove god’s existence. It’s the believer’s job to prove their claims.
Atheists are only looking for attention.
Far from it, all we ask is to be respected for who we are and what we believe.
-
Taken from the "life being an atheist" thread from TPC.
FAQ by "DarthDract"
good luck to them. i think they're just confused but whatever makes them live a good life, it's ok. :)
-
Why do you think they're confused? The FAQ is pretty detailed and one of the clearest explanations I've yet read on atheism.
I think it's that kind of unilateral dismissiveness that ultimately prevents any kind of intelligent discussion on atheism and religion. Perhaps a point-by-point response?
-
Why do you think they're confused? The FAQ is pretty detailed and one of the clearest explanations I've yet read on atheism.
I think it's that kind of unilateral dismissiveness that ultimately prevents any kind of intelligent discussion on atheism and religion. Perhaps a point-by-point response?
pardon sir..but this is not a unilateral dismissiveness. maybe it was my take and as it is, i don't see any clear explanation there. maybe they say it's not the absence of God but the question of "is there really a God?"
i pose this question then..so where do you think all the goodness they feel is coming from? for me, it is also the unilateral denial of what is truth that i think confuses them. sometimes, there is no need for any proof to say that there is really a God. their mere existence is enough explanation for it. the goodness that comes from their heart is a proof of the presence of God. their good living, good relationship with people is a proof that there is a God.
from the top of their head, to the end of their toes, is a proof that there is God. :D
-
Okay, maybe you should've posted that in the first place.
However, you're essentially saying that "goodness" is proof of God. "Goodness" emanates from God. Man needs God to be "good". Therefore, "goodness" is not man's inclination?
It is a misconception that a person needs to believe in a deity in order to be good. The fact is, even belief in the supernatural doesn’t prevent many people from committing crimes.
A person can be good even without belief in the supernatural. Morality and laws, afterall, are not rooted in religion but in the community’s concepts of what is acceptable and right. It varies from place to place but their core is always the same: that which would protect a person’s life and well-being.
Following the laws and acting in the socially accepted manner is already enough for people to call you a good person.
To an atheist, I doubt that the presence of "good" in the natural world is proof of God. You can't prove that empirically. And if you can't prove it, it's not reasonable and ultimately not acceptable. To them, proper laws and generally accepted norms of behavior in society are what define "good".
It really is a different way of looking at things, and judging from the FAQ, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Why? Because religion is rooted in faith, and atheism pretty much rejects faith because it demands empirical evidence, but faith by its very nature is empirically impossible to prove because of the supernatural dimension, which of course is unacceptable because it cannot be explained scientifically... and so on and so forth.
My recommendation? Ye of much faith... ignore this thread. Please. ;D
-
Okay, maybe you should've posted that in the first place.
However, you're essentially saying that "goodness" is proof of God. "Goodness" emanates from God. Man needs God to be "good". Therefore, "goodness" is not man's inclination?
To an atheist, I doubt that the presence of "good" in the natural world is proof of God. You can't prove that empirically. And if you can't prove it, it's not reasonable and ultimately not acceptable. To them, proper laws and generally accepted norms of behavior in society are what define "good".
It really is a different way of looking at things, and judging from the FAQ, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Why? Because religion is rooted in faith, and atheism pretty much rejects faith because it demands empirical evidence, but faith by its very nature is empirically impossible to prove because of the supernatural dimension, which of course is unacceptable because it cannot be explained scientifically... and so on and so forth.
My recommendation? Ye of much faith... ignore this thread. Please. ;D
my Philo teacher will definitely kill me. ;D
so i'd rather follow your advice...i'll ignore the thread instead. 8)
-
How about the fact that atoms cannot be created, only transformed. Is that not a proof of a God creator?
-
The big bang theory provides an explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it.
-
The big bang theory provides an explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it.
that is Science. and we know for a fact that Science and Religion are parallel and will never meet.
but pray tell, who created the Universe?
argh! i shud have followed the advice. i shud ignore this thread. Peace all! :)
-
that is Science. and we know for a fact that Science and Religion are parallel and will never meet.
tigkal said Is that not a proof of a God creator? I provided a scientific explanation.
-
The Big Bang Theory does not necessarily rule out the possibility of intelligent creation.
The pioneer of the theory was Georges Lemaître, who called it the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', which was later referred to as the Big Bang.
Lemaître's theory was an application of Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Einstein initially rejected Lemaître's theory. But after Hubble published his velocity-distance relation which strongly supported an expanding universe (and consequently the Big Bang), Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory.
Lemaître's conclusion was that the Big Bang was a "creation-like event".
It's noteworthy that Georges Lemaître was not only a professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuvena (Belgium), he was also a Roman Catholic priest, who sometimes used the title "Monsignor".
-
What's really interesting is that with present string theory, a new idea is being postulated that the universe had no beginning -- it just existed. But it will have an end. A really strange idea that is hard to wrap your head around on.
-
^ Would you know if this is part of M Theory or a different/new version of string theory?
-
Yikes, I really cant remember. My memory's foggy about the exact details.
-
It's really hard to get them straight, specially if you're not a physicist. I barely understand them myself particularly since there's more than 1 version and they keep getting updated and modified over time. But I'm really hoping they crack this in my lifetime. Specially the holy grail--unified field theory that will bring together quantum physics and general relativity. And hopefully it can be explained in such a way that I can understand it. ;D
-
Physicists are pinning their hope on string theory to finally bring about a unified theory of the universe. That would be awesome if they do crack it in our lifetime.
I agree with you. Most explanations of string and M theory are getting updated at a fast pace. I'm still looking for a good book or documentary that could explain it in a way that is easier to understand.
-
M-theory? Michael Moorcock's Multiverse theory? Kidding. ;)
M-theory actually allows for the supernatural and the modeling of miracles. Interesting stuff:
http://creationwiki.org/M-theory
-
The geek in me would love to have an actual working multiverse theory. :)
-
The Big Bang Theory does not necessarily rule out the possibility of intelligent creation.
The pioneer of the theory was Georges Lemaître, who called it the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', which was later referred to as the Big Bang.
Lemaître's theory was an application of Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Einstein initially rejected Lemaître's theory. But after Hubble published his velocity-distance relation which strongly supported an expanding universe (and consequently the Big Bang), Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory.
Lemaître's conclusion was that the Big Bang was a "creation-like event".
It's noteworthy that Georges Lemaître was not only a professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuvena (Belgium), he was also a Roman Catholic priest, who sometimes used the title "Monsignor".
Heard this "idea" in - Louie Giglio's Indescribable DVD (http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2323). Makes sense - "creation-like event".
Here's another one that ties science and faith together (at least for me) - Alive DVD (http://international.ourchurchbookstore.com.au/showProduct.aspx?id=317178) from Louie Giglio also.
Peace and Cheers!!!
Compaq
-
M-theory? Michael Moorcock's Multiverse theory? Kidding. ;)
M-theory actually allows for the supernatural and the modeling of miracles. Interesting stuff:
http://creationwiki.org/M-theory
Nice link. Easy to read and understand. Parang gusto ko lang i-edit. I don't think english is his first language.
-
QUESTION TO garyMD: Would you vote for an atheist to public office, knowing full well that he is definitely qualified, not corrupt and not a trapo?
-
No offense to the atheist here or elsewhere, but their reasoning is always the big bang theory or it takes MILLIONS of years for something to evolve. Not to make this religious but just look at our solar system with everything lined up perfectly, the sun and the moon etc.. Imo, this is just amazing so I believe there is a creator. How about the human body? Everything complements each other. Just our blood tells us everything, thats amazing!!
I'm still waiting for the day that humans will grow wings and will be able to fly. We will evolve eventually. ::) ???..Oh wait that will not be a part of our evolution bec we come from monkeys. ;D
-
^ Just to clarify, does this mean you don't believe in evolution?
-
I'm still waiting for the day that humans will grow wings and will be able to fly. We will evolve eventually. ::) ???..Oh wait that will not be a part of our evolution bec we come from monkeys. ;D
This is so confusing.
-
It is very difficult to prove the existence of God because humans imaginatively put that God in a box and labeled it according to his understanding. The problem happens when humans later peep on that box and does not find that God there.
-
^ Just to clarify, does this mean you don't believe in evolution?
Yup Sorry I don't believe in evolution. I wanna ask one thing to those atheist. Where did humans come from? From algae or some living organism that evolved?
This is so confusing.
Sorry Im just being sarcastic ;D. I'm just saying evolutionists always say we come from some kind of organism or whatever. That is a huge change to become a human being imo. So I ask, when will we start growing wings, horns, tails etc. ;D Evolution is an advancement imo. We get better and better. You know where I'm getting at hehe ;D
It is very difficult to prove the existence of God because humans imaginatively put that God in a box and labeled it according to his understanding. The problem happens when humans later peep on that box and does not find that God there.
Our mind is limited. We will never understand everything in this world. Imo, To each his own what they want to believe in. I just find atheist/evolutionist amusing if you ask them where humans come from. ;D
-
No offense to the atheist here or elsewhere, but their reasoning is always the big bang theory or it takes MILLIONS of years for something to evolve. Not to make this religious but just look at our solar system with everything lined up perfectly, the sun and the moon etc.. Imo, this is just amazing so I believe there is a creator. How about the human body? Everything complements each other. Just our blood tells us everything, thats amazing!!
Not because everything is in order, does not mean that it did not arise from chaos,hence the "Chaos Theory of Life"....it's the theory of randomness in everything eventually finding it's place.
Now isn't that more logical than beliveing in a "supreme diety"?
I'm still waiting for the day that humans will grow wings and will be able to fly. We will evolve eventually. ..Oh wait that will not be a part of our evolution bec we come from monkeys.
To evolve is to adapt to the needs to survive in a diverse environment, for that is the wonder we have in this world it's diversity, thus humans eventually evolving does not neccessarily means they'll grow wings.
Yup Sorry I don't believe in evolution. I wanna ask one thing to those atheist. Where did humans come from? From algae or some living organism that evolved?
You might be surprised, but having a DNA simply means that there's objectivity in the sense that a person might think this way,and question or simply not believe in the tenets that religion has imposed upon us.
Our mind is limited. We will never understand everything in this world. Imo, To each his own what they want to believe in. I just find evolutionist amusing if you ask them where humans come from.
Well..thank goodness the mind is limited since it drives an individual to look for answers and use it more (for if ever the other faculties of the brain has been utilized, we probably would have discovered the reasons long before the time of copernicus) for a collective benefit.
Good for us;at least these scientists are still looking for answers,and still possess an inquisitive mind that we know from history has propelled man to discover or achieved scientific breakthroughs that have benefitted mankind.
....lastly...to each his own, we'll probably never know, maybe only in death, if the religious are correct, thank goodness for hell or purgatory, if otherwise, we'll probably not know in this lifetime.
-
My desk is a mess and i am still waiting for the chaos theory to work for all the documents and stuff on the table to find its own place and get sorted.
-
QUESTION TO garyMD: Would you vote for an atheist to public office, knowing full well that he is definitely qualified, not corrupt and not a trapo?
i have a question unanswered from here pala.
i don't have any problem with that. as long as he/she is qualified and will be serving the Filipino people as a public servant should, then why not?
since atheist does not believe in God, i take it that he doesn't believe in an after life too? meaning, he will in all his powers do everything that is good and proper and honest in his lifetime on earth.
am i correct?
-
Here are some good reads ;D..Again I'm not making this a religion thing.
DNA double helix
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm
Evolution
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution.htm
How scientist explain the evolution of a human brain
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-the-human-brain-faq.htm
Evolution of man
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
Big Bang theory
http://www.allaboutscience.org/big-bang-theory.htm
-
Here are some good reads ;D..Again I'm not making this a religion thing.
DNA double helix
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm
Evolution
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution.htm
How scientist explain the evolution of a human brain
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-the-human-brain-faq.htm
Evolution of man
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
Big Bang theory
http://www.allaboutscience.org/big-bang-theory.htm
Interesting reading. All the theories requires more faith compared to believing what was written in the bible that God created everything.
-
Here are some good reads ;D..Again I'm not making this a religion thing.
DNA double helix
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm
Evolution
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution.htm
How scientist explain the evolution of a human brain
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-the-human-brain-faq.htm
Evolution of man
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
Big Bang theory
http://www.allaboutscience.org/big-bang-theory.htm
I browsed through some of your links. Interesting read.
If you don't believe in evolution, I'd like to ask what it is you do believe in. Is the Genesis origin story what you believe in? Intelligent design? Do you believe that the age of the planet is roughly 4.5 billion years? Do you believe in all the extinct species that have been found through fossils? Why would God create them if man was never going to see them alive. And why create a planet and wait billions of years before putting people on them?
-
Bill Hicks made the perfect commentary about Creationism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF0Nnz0gKSI
-
I browsed through some of your links. Interesting read.
If you don't believe in evolution, I'd like to ask what it is you do believe in. Is the Genesis origin story what you believe in? Intelligent design? Do you believe that the age of the planet is roughly 4.5 billion years? Do you believe in all the extinct species that have been found through fossils? Why would God create them if man was never going to see them alive. And why create a planet and wait billions of years before putting people on them?
I believe there is a God, the creator, omnipotent. I can't answer all your questions bec. I'm not God ;D He has his own reasons. Like I said, our mind is limited and we can't answer everything. Days for God could be hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years for us. Dinosaurs were probably destroyed by God bec he wanted to create humans, who knows. All I know is, presently, we are the supreme beings of this planet, with our minds, intelligence, looks (just check out the hot or not thread ;D), etc. and we did not come from some organism, apes or whatever. ??? :o We will know all of these answers when its our time to meet God.
By the way, I'm just curious, What do you believe in?
-
i believe in God too.
and i believe that there are things that you cannot explain. we humans get in a lot of trouble because we want all questions answered. maybe that's what you called faith.
anyway, just my 2-cents.
-
QUESTION TO garyMD: Would you vote for an atheist to public office, knowing full well that he is definitely qualified, not corrupt and not a trapo?
As I much I prefer a God fearing leader, an atheist can do as well in a government office as long he is virtous.
I respect Atheist as well. God respects those who take sides compared to a so called christian who do not completely submit to HIS word. Claims to be christian yet partially believe or half heartedly obeying what is commanded in the bible.
Revelation 3:15-16 says "I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you
were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!"
-
we humans get in a lot of trouble because we want all questions answered. maybe that's what you called faith.
What a strange comment. Aren't you a man of science, sir?
-
Idiocracy...hmmm..that's a good movie. ::) ;)
-
Im just curious why there has been a surge of documentaries about Einstein, Darwin and Stephen Hawking recently - and di hamak na mas madaling intindihin instead of reading the manuscripts. ;)
-
What a strange comment. Aren't you a man of science, sir?
why did you find my comment strange? and maybe can you define a man of science? what does it mean? thank you!
-
I believe there is a God, the creator, omnipotent. I can't answer all your questions bec. I'm not God ;D He has his own reasons. Like I said, our mind is limited and we can't answer everything. Days for God could be hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years for us. Dinosaurs were probably destroyed by God bec he wanted to create humans, who knows. All I know is, presently, we are the supreme beings of this planet, with our minds, intelligence, looks (just check out the hot or not thread ;D), etc. and we did not come from some organism, apes or whatever. ??? :o We will know all of these answers when its our time to meet God.
By the way, I'm just curious, What do you believe in?
I believe in evolution. I believe that the universe was created from a singularity. From infinite density and temperature the universe expanded, created stars, eventually planets. On our planet life started from simple cells. After 3 billion years simple animals finally arrived. Fish then amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Early humans arrived about 2.5 million years ago but modern humans only arrived in the last few hundred thousand years.
Now I'm completely open to the assertion that God is what I referred to above as infinite density and temperature. But the rest of it (after the singularity) pretty much plays out as science has discovered and explained. There may still be gaps and there may even be some mistakes. But what I like about science is that it has to survive "peer review". If something is discovered that contradicts a "scientifict fact", it ceases to be scientifict fact.
Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.
Since from your viewpoint man did not evolve from apes, do you believe we were put on this earth as we are now about 200,000 years ago? I'd like to find out how, specifically, you believe we got here. I don't think you believe in the Adam and Eve story, or am I wrong about that? Also, how much of my "history of the universe/earth" above do you agree/disagree with?
-
why did you find my comment strange? and maybe can you define a man of science? what does it mean? thank you!
From what I gathered you're a doctor. And being one, you rely on science to do your job. Science, not faith. Unless of course you're not a doctor, or you're a different type of doctor then just disregard my earlier posts. :)
-
From what I gathered you're a doctor. And being one, you rely on science to do your job. Science, not faith. Unless of course you're not a doctor, or you're a different type of doctor then just disregard my earlier posts. :)
isa akong kun-doktor! hehe
seriously, isa lamang po akong hamak na manggagawa! ;D
-
For me, the closest plausible explanation about man's existence is by Sitchin. That is why as of now, we can not find that missing link in the evolution process of man. We were made in the creator's likeness, as stated in the bible, after a series of experiments. I am still searching for a more plausible explanation though and as of this moment, that explanation of Sitchin is more realistic.
-
Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.
GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?
-
I believe in evolution. I believe that the universe was created from a singularity. From infinite density and temperature the universe expanded, created stars, eventually planets. On our planet life started from simple cells. After 3 billion years simple animals finally arrived. Fish then amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Early humans arrived about 2.5 million years ago but modern humans only arrived in the last few hundred thousand years.
Now I'm completely open to the assertion that God is what I referred to above as infinite density and temperature. But the rest of it (after the singularity) pretty much plays out as science has discovered and explained. There may still be gaps and there may even be some mistakes. But what I like about science is that it has to survive "peer review". If something is discovered that contradicts a "scientifict fact", it ceases to be scientifict fact.
Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.
Since from your viewpoint man did not evolve from apes, do you believe we were put on this earth as we are now about 200,000 years ago? I'd like to find out how, specifically, you believe we got here. I don't think you believe in the Adam and Eve story, or am I wrong about that? Also, how much of my "history of the universe/earth" above do you agree/disagree with?
Yes I believe in the Bible, Adam and Eve and everything in the Bible. ;). I'm not here to convert anybody, preach or say I'm right and the rest of you are wrong. As long as one is secure with his/her belief then thats the bottom line. We can go back and forth and make this 50 pages, we will still not agree with each other. Well, I'm off to watch Planet Earth, Great bites collection, and other documentaries to admire what an amazing, magnificent place we live in ;)
-
the mere fact that we are arguing if there is really a God or his existence comes with the knowledge and impression that there is really a God.
but whatever floats our boat, so be it. :)
-
GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?
Better yet, why was the tree there in the first place if not to be eaten.
-
Yes I believe in the Bible, Adam and Eve and everything in the Bible. ;). I'm not here to convert anybody, preach or say I'm right and the rest of you are wrong. As long as one is secure with his/her belief then thats the bottom line. We can go back and forth and make this 50 pages, we will still not agree with each other. Well, I'm off to watch Planet Earth, Great bites collection, and other documentaries to admire what an amazing, magnificent place we live in ;)
No problem with that. Just wanted to understand what position you're coming from. If you don't want to debate this further we can agree to disagree.
-
the mere fact that we are arguing if there is really a God or his existence comes with the knowledge and impression that there is really a God.
but whatever floats our boat, so be it. :)
Not true. Merely arguing about God's existence does not automatically make Him exist.
-
GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?
I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.
But if you believe we're not supposed to learn everything we can from this universe of ours, where is one supposed to stop? God wasn't quite clear on that either. Stop at grade 5? in high school? from discovering the origin of the universe? Tough to draw a line.
-
Better yet, why was the tree there in the first place if not to be eaten.
The tree was actually not a literal tree, same as the the seven days not the seven days we know now. It was just written as a tree for easy understanding, same as the seven day creation story. The Tree symbolize the genetic manipulation they did to us for us to have the intelligence to know good and evil, and comes with it the intelligence to survive on our own and not having a God as supervisor. And most important thing: To Think and use our faculties and abilities to discern what is the truth or not.
-
The tree was actually not a literal tree, same as the the seven days not the seven days we know now. It was just written as a tree for easy understanding, same as the seven day creation story. The Tree symbolize the genetic manipulation they did to us for us to have the intelligence to know good and evil, and comes with it the intelligence to survive on our own and not having a God as supervisor. And most important thing: To Think and use our faculties and abilities to discern what is the truth or not.
Excuse me but where exactly u got this doctrine?
-
It was from the ancient sumerian texts, per Sitchin. It predates the bible.It is not a religion by the way. It is just a statement of facts as recorded.
-
Try downloading the BBC documentary "Did Darwin Kill God?" It's about a Christian scientist's quest to reconcile the "differences" between science and faith. One interesting thing that came up there is the little known fact that the Bible (or at least the original books before the Church adopted and compiled them) was never meant to be interpreted literally.
-
Try downloading the BBC documentary "Did Darwin Kill God?" It's about a Christian scientist's quest to reconcile the "differences" between science and faith. One interesting thing that came up there is the little known fact that the Bible (or at least the original books before the Church adopted and compiled them) was never meant to be interpreted literally.
I felt he was trying really hard to connect Darwinism to God.
Well, my faith simply tells me there is The God no matter how convincing the theory of evolution is. I do not want to think that being good in one's lifetime has no meaning in the afterlife.
-
I don't think that believing in God and in Evolution is an either/or proposition.
To enlighten all of you guys, please watch this interview with Jesuit priest Fr. George Coyne, the former Director of the Vatican Observatory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc
He does not at all support Intelligent Design -- which has put him at loggerheads with Pope Benedict XVI. It's interesting to note that Pope John Paul II supports Coyne's views.
-
I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.
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.
-
Related: "Father Barron on The New Atheists"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI
-
I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.
Free will Bro.
-
Some people believe that we should share God's word with everyone. That's not true. In fact, Jesus commands us not to share the meaning of God's word with those who have already rejected it.
Matt. 7:6 says: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
During that time, they didn't see dogs as man's best friend, but dangerous animals that traveled in packs.
Give dogs and swine something they have already rejected and they will trample it under their feet, then rip you apart.
That's why Rev. 22:11 says: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
-
That God is not omniscient, is that dogma? I thought the Catholic view is that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
-
Free will Bro.
Yes but I see Adam and Eve as innocent and naive, much like a little child. I wouldn't leave a 3 y.o. in that same situation. I'm sure God had wisdom enough to see what was likely to happen, omniscient or not.
I know it's essentially a parable about free will but it does not have the same impact as if the protagonists were fully conscious adults who know right from wrong and therefore can fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.
-
That God is not omniscient, is that dogma? I thought the Catholic view is that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
The Catholic view is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This view is shared by many religions and theologians.
The minority view is that God is omnipotent, but not omniscient or omnipresent. To me, this is the Biblically accurate view.
-
The Catholic view is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This view is shared by many religions and theologians.
The minority view is that God is omnipotent, but not omniscient or omnipresent. To me, this is the Biblically accurate view.
That would actually make more sense to me because Free Will and Omniscience are mutually exclusive. Where one exists, the other, by definition, cannot exist as well.
-
Yes but I see Adam and Eve as innocent and naive, much like a little child. I wouldn't leave a 3 y.o. in that same situation. I'm sure God had wisdom enough to see what was likely to happen, omniscient or not.
I know it's essentially a parable about free will but it does not have the same impact as if the protagonists were fully conscious adults who know right from wrong and therefore can fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.
the fact that they roamed naked shows that there was no free will involved. I agree the before that fruit was eaten, their mind was that of a 3 yr old or less.
-
the fact that they roamed naked shows that there was no free will involved. I agree the before that fruit was eaten, their mind was that of a 3 yr old or less.
they're supposed to be kids and enjoy paradise. with no malice , whatsoever. but eating the fruit of knowledge gave them the consciousness of what's between man and woman and how it is to defy God.
as said, i guess that's how God was testing us humans;given their knowledge, will we try to be better than God? which for me, that's the down fall of humanity. when they tried to be better than God and act as if they are God.
-
The catch is not free will but the burden of self-consciousness. That's why the first thing they realized was that they were naked.
And then there's the second tree....
-
The catch is not free will but the burden of self-consciousness. That's why the first thing they realized was that they were naked.
And then there's the second tree....
The second tree grew so fast and big after Adam realized they were naked...and it was the reason why we are all in this world now ;)
-
Some people interpret the Genesis portion of the Bible as evidence that being naked is sinful and we should all be ashamed of our bodies.
-
Some people interpret the Genesis portion of the Bible as evidence that being naked is sinful and we should all be ashamed of our bodies.
i don't think it's about being ashamed of it. it's more of knowing now that it has to be covered. there is the knowledge now about malice, of covering our body just because. 8)
-
It was malice that developed their urge for sex. They had sex so the human race began.
-
not only that.
it's where we get a glimpse to the extent of what humans can do when they got knowledge. now, we even question His very existence. ::)
-
So human race after Adam and Eve was just the reason of that greatest sin. How noble that sin was.
-
So human race after Adam and Eve was just the reason of that greatest sin. How noble that sin was.
what if we think the other way?
i'm sure God will like too, for Adam and Eve to have kids. pero in a different way. ano kaya ang kulay nating human race kung lahat naging mabait? hehehehehe
-
There was already a plan for reproduction when Eve was made from Adam. It was not malice that was given to Adam that made them covered themselves but the intelligence to compare those around them and themselves, just like toddlers. And it was in this comparison that the knew they were naked. Because they are the only ones who were naked around them. And when God knew they were ashamed for being naked, He realized that Man was given the intelligence/knowledge by you know who. That is why sometimes when I see myself in the mirror fully clothed, I wonder why the bible does not speak well of the serpent when in fact it was the serpent who gave us the intellect and knowledge. The Old Testament God wanted man to follow orders without explanations and questions not allowed.
-
From what I remember, the first tree is that of knowledge, and it is a knowledge that involves self-consciousness. That is why the duo became ashamed when they discovered that they were naked. It may be a metaphor for human beings who are ashamed because of their physical appearance, because they are poor, because they made the wrong choices, etc. Being ashamed of many things is a burden that many carry throughout life.
Also, I think Adam and Eve were already immortal before they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge. Perhaps one can imagine that immortality would be bliss if one were not trapped by the burden of materiality and self-consciousness (one book to consider is Kafka's Metamorphosis), but that is not the case for Adam and Eve. Perhaps the only way out of that is immortality in another form of consciousness that is beyond human existence, where there is no self-consciousness and shame.
In any event, the first part of the story (i.e., involving the results of eating fruit from the tree of knowledge) may also be seen as existentialist. Hence, Fr. Barron's point in the video linked earlier.
-
Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden lest they eat the fruit of the tree of life, which would then give them immortality. Because there were two trees that were off limits,the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.
-
I just watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and I find the argument for Intelligent Design valid.
-
I just watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and I find the argument for Intelligent Design valid.
You do realize the CATHOLIC CHURCH herself has rejected Intelligent Design, right? Intelligent Design is NOT science.
-
You do realize the CATHOLIC CHURCH herself has rejected Intelligent Design, right? Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Heh. Since when did the Catholic Church have any say on which science is science?
Oh, right. Since the dark ages. Classifying the scientists as witches and all.
-
You do realize the CATHOLIC CHURCH herself has rejected Intelligent Design, right? Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Ive never actually read on the Catholic Church's stand on Intelligent Design, but I can understand why they would reject that based on the scriptures.
If Intelligent Design is not science, then Biology and Engineering should not be scientific as well.
My appreciation of Intelligent Design is that there seems to be valid line of reasoning to incorporate the idea of evolution and the existence of God. That's all. It is understandable why the extreme Darwinists and the devoutly religious would refuse such idea.
-
as said, i guess that's how God was testing us humans;given their knowledge, will we try to be better than God? which for me, that's the down fall of humanity. when they tried to be better than God and act as if they are God.
Interesting.
Am I correct, sir, in my understanding of your post, that the desire to acquire knowledge and to better one's self will lead humanity to its doom as this leads humans to a desire to be "better than God"?
-
Ive never actually read on the Catholic Church's stand on Intelligent Design, but I can understand why they would reject that based on the scriptures.
Has the Roman Catholic Church rejected Intelligent Design? Hindi naman siguro. Actually, there is no official Roman Catholic Doctrine concerning the issue of Intelligent Design.
The most famous statement from the Vatican on that issue is probably Father George Coyne's comment criticizing the proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design. Fr. Coyne reportedly remarked at a conference in Florence that "Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be". All Fr. Coyne meant was that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes.
However, a statement that merely came from "the Vatican" is not considered a statement in behalf of the Roman Catholic Church unless the statement officially came from the Holy See. At the time, Fr. Coyne was the director of the Vatican Observatory, a position that can hardly be considered an official source of Roman Catholic Doctrine.
Of course, Roman Catholic Doctrine still retains the creation view. Pope Benedict XVI complements the doctrine by issuing statements to the effect that creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory.
Fr. Coyne's statement does not contradict the creation doctrine in any way. Yet the public is misled by newspaper accounts reporting that the Vatican allegedly rejects the theory of Intelligent Design.
In 2006, Fr. Coyne was removed from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory. He was replaced by Argentine Jesuit Father Jose Funes, an expert on disk galaxies. The Vatican did not state the reason for his replacement.
-
I read the first portion and it seems we are all talking about the design that God has for man.
Then a supposition that God is a big mast of temperature
a God that is not omniscient
a God who treat a 3 year old kids like adult
I dont believe Evolution ... because even Darwin himself who formulated it ... was not able to prove it!
But since am talking about belief system, of course, this will tend to be "to each his own" aka audiofools' den.
Darwin believed a "big Bang" ... which scientifically ... is a flawed reasoning.
Then followed by evolution ... of which missing link(s) were never found!
Which could explain the gossip that Darwin recanted all his works in his deathbed ... or the event was suppressed by those he duped.
And who said our world is more than 200,000 years old ... or 2M years old ...
If even scientist can not agree on accurate dating method ... then who can give an accurate reading?
Those touted dating methods have been used to date young bones and reported thousand years!
And who ever said that eating the fruit itself (in the middle of the garden) enabled Adam & Eve to be "aware"? It is like saying that the strength of Samson lies in his "hair"! ;D
God is not time-bound ... so as not to know what Adam & Eve will do ... to Him, the first beginning and the end of the world is basically one and the same ... if you can not fathom that, I can not as well ... because we just have our limited mind ... unless you are god yourself.
My learning in my faith tells me that ... at the creation of man & woman, God already made a grand design ... because he knew already what is to take place ... and what will be the glorious ending. Which is why God knew what Pharaoh will do ... and when His people can go out of egypt - where they should go - etc etc.
I think man do not desire to be better than God (only applicable to those who believe in God) ... Since the pre-historic ages, man desires to communicate with gods ... on their own terms ... on their own understanding ... so you have your various religions and what have you.
For those who do not believe in god ... the bible also speaks explicitly about them ... sorry for this but am just quoting 'The f**ls said in his heart, there is no God!' (Proverbs) ... they are just defying God ... but this things are irrelevant ... because their end is also known already at this point ... "that at the feet of Jesus, every knee will bow" ... yes folks, even the knee of Satan himself - the fallen great archangel!
Going to the big bang theory, and darwin's evolution ... studying them well seriously will end you like C.S. Lewis who dont believe in God inititally. But even the reasoning of science will point you back to God - and this is the clear declaration of the Bible - the very creation of God will be the very witnesses that will testify against you when you face your own judgment day! - because from the stand point of the big bang theory, and that of evolution, the creation speaks so clearly ... that big bang is a big lie (based on science) ... and evolution is also a big lie (based in science as well)!
I have time also when I have difficulty believing what I believe today before ... the only assurance I have now is the nation Israel ... If the nation Israel have been wiped out from the map of the world permanently, then all my belief is in vain ... but as long as they are there, the Almighty God reigns regardless of anybody's belief ... for all the ancient prophesies will be fulfilled in them ... they are the time table ...
-
The big bang theory provides an explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it.
This is simply not true ... the big bang theory did not explain how in the first place the first cell exist ... that's why, scientifically, this is a flawed presentation (Isaac newton) ... so they said ... suddenly there was a cell!
-
Well..thank goodness the mind is limited since it drives an individual to look for answers and use it more (for if ever the other faculties of the brain has been utilized, we probably would have discovered the reasons long before the time of copernicus) for a collective benefit.
Good for us;at least these scientists are still looking for answers,and still possess an inquisitive mind that we know from history has propelled man to discover or achieved scientific breakthroughs that have benefitted mankind.
....lastly...to each his own, we'll probably never know, maybe only in death, if the religious are correct, thank goodness for hell or purgatory, if otherwise, we'll probably not know in this lifetime.
On the contrary ... the mind is limitless ... and the very tehhnology we might be talking about here might have existed before when all human being is of one accord ... in the construction of tower of babel ...
and the bible recorded that the very reason it was destroyed by God, and human beings were separated by different language is because they are already doing what is supposed to be done at a latter part of human history.
and what they are doing can be looked 2 ways ... for the good of mankind ... in defiance of God!
-
Funny how science and the rigorous, quantifiable, reproducible scientific method is a big lie while an unverifiable old manuscript is inassailably true.
-
Let me share this article: The argument for the existence of God.
The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held their beliefs due to a ‘wish fulfillment’ factor that produced what Freud considered to be their unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.
Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is yes it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking then he must ‘be.’ In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When you study philosophy, you learn that there are things called ‘analytically false’ statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as ‘spontaneous generation’ —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” This being the case, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.
Notice that you must go back to an eternal ‘something.’ The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door they can choose. But the question now is: where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented: “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: If an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—‘no god’ which is what ‘atheist’ means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure they have not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support their position, but they cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom they convince of their position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "John 1:12-13 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, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13 NAS).
Let me share this url as well ... http://www.reasons.org/
-
Funny how science and the rigorous, quantifiable, reproducible scientific method is a big lie while an unverifiable old manuscript is inassailably true.
it is even more absurd to misrepresent science by big bang theories and evolution theories ... as they are ... they are just theories ... and science are not about theories ... theories, in plain language is just "haka haka" ... in English - imagination! Science is simply ... Cause & Effect thingie ... In big bang, there is an EFFECT but can not account for the CAUSE!
If the big bang theory did not even attempt to explain the origin of their "first cell", dont try hard in saying big bang explained such! Their theories did not provide REPRODUCIBLE evidences but RIGOROUS hot air and QUANTIFIABLE paper documents ... in fact, they are not science at all due to missing proofs or evidences of all their claims.
I can not also say that I can verify God in that manuscript because I will not be able to see God ... in the same way that I will not be able to see your brain!
But in our democratic system ... anybody is free to claim that their ancestors are apes ... I have no problem with that ... mine is not though.
-
Ah I seem to have misunderstood your comment in parenthesis. I thought you meant it is a lie because it is based on science (i.e., that science is a lie). But now I think you in fact mean the opposite (that it is a lie because it is not based on science).
I wouldn't call a theory a lie. A theory is a work in progress. It evolves so to speak. As evidence is gathered it either confirms the theory or the theory will need to be reworked a bit. If evidence comes a long that totally disproves the theory then the theory is abandoned. I especially like that it's not simply down to faith.
Now regarding the big bang theory I never claimed that it explained the existence of life. It was a direct response to tigkal's comment:
How about the fact that atoms cannot be created, only transformed. Is that not a proof of a God creator?
Hence my reply:
The big bang theory provides an explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it.
I have time also when I have difficulty believing what I believe today before ... the only assurance I have now is the nation Israel ... If the nation Israel have been wiped out from the map of the world permanently, then all my belief is in vain ... but as long as they are there, the Almighty God reigns regardless of anybody's belief ... for all the ancient prophesies will be fulfilled in them ... they are the time table ...
Lucky you were just born within the last 60 years. If you had lived 100, 500, 1000 years ago, before the state of Israel was created, what that would have done to your faith.
Oh and also, does that mean you're Jewish?
-
I have time also when I have difficulty believing what I believe today before ... the only assurance I have now is the nation Israel ... If the nation Israel have been wiped out from the map of the world permanently, then all my belief is in vain ... but as long as they are there, the Almighty God reigns regardless of anybody's belief ... for all the ancient prophesies will be fulfilled in them ... they are the time table ...
OT
buti hindi ako palestino kundi sabihin ko sa iyo na "inagaw" lang ng mga hudyo ang lupa ng mga palestino kaya nagkaron ng "israel"...
whether or not there's israel or the vatican, i still believe there is God.
-
it is even more absurd to misrepresent science by big bang theories and evolution theories ... as they are ... they are just theories ... and science are not about theories ... theories, in plain language is just "haka haka" ... in English - imagination! Science is simply ... Cause & Effect thingie ... In big bang, there is an EFFECT but can not account for the CAUSE!
There seems to be a misunderstanding of "theory" here.
Science accepts the fact that in order for theory to be law, there must be irrefutable mathematical and scientific evidence. Canon Law, meanwhile, is based on a consensus of mostly old men believing in a religion that was far different from what the founder had in mind. The only cause for canon to be modified (i.e. through ecumenical councils) is to prevent disagreement and discord among the believers, the majority of which seem to realize something new about their religion every century or so. Whereas, for science to come up with a plausible theory, voluminous documentation is needed through experimentation and mathematical verification (esp. physics) using a logical process.
For example, Einstein's theory of relativity is listed and referred to as a "theory" yet experiments and observations on it probably amount to millions of pages of documentation.
Btw, "HAKA-HAKA", translated into English means opinion and/or assumption.
-
If all things including us came from one source and that is GOD, sometime we will all go back to the source which is GOD. We may not actually be different from the source, just in a different form. ;)
-
We had a family experience that sometimes returns to mind but hasn't changed my belief in the existence of God and afterlife anyways.
My aunt had a difficult childbirth and she died for a few minutes but fortunately was revived in time. I was there in the hospital because his husband was overseas. The doctor only told us about the whole thing after the delivery.
We didnt tell our Aunt until she has recovered enough, but when we did and asked her how the experience was, she said she saw "nothing", absolutely no memory or dream or vision of anything? No bright light, no seeing her own body, no out of body experience. It was as if she simply had a very deep sleep.
-
HI sir sardaukar ;)
Ah I seem to have misunderstood your comment in parenthesis. I thought you meant it is a lie because it is based on science (i.e., that science is a lie). But now I think you in fact mean the opposite (that it is a lie because it is not based on science).
I wouldn't call a theory a lie. A theory is a work in progress. It evolves so to speak. As evidence is gathered it either confirms the theory or the theory will need to be reworked a bit. If evidence comes a long that totally disproves the theory then the theory is abandoned. I especially like that it's not simply down to faith.
Okay, got you ,,, what I call a lie is that the big bang theory explain the origin of their first cell. They did not. This is just like one of that popular book which tried to explain the life of Jesus - He started in a theory (without basis) and from that theory, build up his case and ended in a conclusion. Such conclusion does not stand due to the fact that he built it in the wrong premise. Thus, all the conclusions made within the big bang and evolution has no substance to date because it is still premised on something that was still a theory (non-existent).
In all these years that they touted, not a single organism is conclusively presented as missing link ... in fact evolution can not categorically says when did evolution stopped ... and if it did not stop, how come how come the missing link is nowhere to be found ... In fact it should abound by this time of ours!!!
If people are so blinded by their opinion, no matter what you do for them, they will not change ... Sir JT presented the logic of philosopher ... and even using the norm of reasoning that science supports, no way you can end up concluding there is no God - you will end up on the contrary!!! ... This means atheist did not follow the rule of logic reasoning nor of science reasoning that's why they end up as atheist - in short, their atheism is based on flawed reasoning!
Now regarding the big bang theory I never claimed that it explained the existence of life. It was a direct response to tigkal's comment:
Sori about this ... though I resented classifying big bang and evolution as science which they are not! ... If I make a hypothesis today (the first portion of scientific reasoning) - will I call it science if I can not still validate my hypothesis? even after so many years it has been debated?
Lucky you were just born within the last 60 years. If you had lived 100, 500, 1000 years ago, before the state of Israel was created, what that would have done to your faith.
Oh and also, does that mean you're Jewish?
The state of Israel was made only recently ... if what you mean is the recognition the US and the UN gave it.
But Israel was in existence even before that as proven by the pentateuch - or original historical manuscript still being protected by Israel. If I just rely on the literal interpreation of biblical times, it can be estimated Israel existed 5,000 years ago.
As far as my faith is concerned ... I can not answer (actually I can but I may be misunderstood) ... its only His wishes that I was born during this time ... however, even in the olden times of the history of Israel, non-Israelites are being mixed with them in various circumstances ... other than that I can not comment
The state of Israel is like our muslims in Mindanao - it is their ancestral land ... Palestinians (probably including arabs) and Israel are at odds since time immemorial dating back to their ancestor Ismael and Isaac - both sons of Abraham - the earlier as illegitimate while the latter the legitimate heir - so both of them have claims on that land.
Lastly, am not Jewish ;D
The Jewish now, though I said the prophesises will be fulfilled in them, does not necesarily believe the totality of the Bible. They are still awaiting the coming of their Messaih! ???
-
For example, Einstein's theory of relativity is listed and referred to as a "theory" yet experiments and observations on it probably amount to millions of pages of documentation.
Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..
Btw, "HAKA-HAKA", translated into English means opinion and/or assumption.
exaggeration ko lang yon sir ;D
-
Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..
Just curious, on what "incorrect" grounds do you think are these theories based?
-
Just curious, on what "incorrect" grounds do you think are these theories based?
on BLACK MAGIC ;)
I will not quote verbatim ...
But the start of the big bang theory is like this:
SUDDENLY THERE WAS A CELL!
- then blah blah blah evolved blah blah blah
CONCLUSION: We evolved from apes! ;D
Science will require you to determine the source of the first cell ... since the intent of the big bang theory is to articulate the beginning & development of life.
My note: The big bang theory - as opposed to science - believed in magic. They assumed a cell SUDDENLY appeared from nowhere, from where all organism evolved from. This is not science ... more of a folklore to me.
Sir Isaac Newton also tried hard to convince his atheist colleagues by proving the flaw in Big Bang/Evolution.
He made a very beautiful model of solar system in his house. And when his colleagues saw it, they were all praised to it.
One of them ask Isaac: How did you do that? ???
Isaac said: I did not! It just appeared there! ;D
His colleagues replied: That's impossible! :P
Then Isaac delivered the punchline: So does your Big Bang/Evolution theory! 8)
-
In all these years that they touted, not a single organism is conclusively presented as missing link ... in fact evolution can not categorically says when did evolution stopped ... and if it did not stop, how come how come the missing link is nowhere to be found ... In fact it should abound by this time of ours!!!
Why should the missing link abound by this time? I don't know what you think the missing link is.
Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..
Not even a bit? If that were true it would have and should have been abandoned as a theory long ago. It hasn't been and there's a good reason for it.
Sori about this ... though I resented classifying big bang and evolution as science which they are not! ... If I make a hypothesis today (the first portion of scientific reasoning) - will I call it science if I can not still validate my hypothesis? even after so many years it has been debated?
It might help to define terms:
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
-
@aHobbit
Let's please differentiate and not lump things together. The big bang does not and has never claimed to explain the existence of life. It tries to explain the origin of the universe.
Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?
-
Why should the missing link abound by this time? I don't know what you think the missing link is.
well ... if evolution is still continuing (or had it stopped?) ... you should have your half man and half ape thingie and so on ... excuse me, when is my wings coming to sprout? ;D
Not even a bit? If that were true it would have and should have been abandoned as a theory long ago. It hasn't been and there's a good reason for it.
mismo ... can you show the archive of their missing links? ... what has been proven by theory that started from black magic? ... The fact is, Big Bang and Evolution is not part of science nor of philosophy ... it is more of a religion - that is - regardless of what the evidence will point out on the contrary - people will believe on it blindly.
It might help to define terms:
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
Big Bang & Evolution did not observed anything - they just assumed thing. It can not show nor predict the behavior of the natural world - they are not even considered scientific laws! Which observation and experimental evidences proved their theories?
You are just trying to lump theories as science. Semantics!
What is scientific about the Big Bang magic? What is scientific in theories not reproducible? It started with a magic, discusses at length assumptions, and made conclusions! Even with quantifiable evidences (which do not exists), those theories can not be regarded as scientific? It even failed philosophically to warrant it as a good religion!
Lastly, a theory proven ceases to be a theory! A hypothesis proven ceases to be a hypothesis!
-
Sir Isaac Newton also tried hard to convince his atheist colleagues by proving the flaw in Big Bang/Evolution.
He made a very beautiful model of solar system in his house. And when his colleagues saw it, they were all praised to it.
One of them ask Isaac: How did you do that? ???
Isaac said: I did not! It just appeared there! ;D
His colleagues replied: That's impossible! :P
Then Isaac delivered the punchline: So does your Big Bang/Evolution theory! 8)
Umm, is this even a true story? Because if history serves me right, Isaac Newton predated the formulation of those theories.
-
Evolution kicks in because of necessity. And there is a master gene which decides which can evolve or not. And if ever we evolve and not allowed as per master gene, then it will stop on the next generation. That is why we see people with 11 fingers, but does not go on to the next generation.
Regarding things to just appear, di ba same din with a God Creator, it just appears?
-
Umm, is this even a true story? Because if history serves me right, Isaac Newton predated the formulation of those theories.
I don't know ... I also read that in my documents :) ... but I think it is irrelevant because one can see the flaw of the reasoning
Evolution kicks in because of necessity. And there is a master gene which decides which can evolve or not. And if ever we evolve and not allowed as per master gene, then it will stop on the next generation. That is why we see people with 11 fingers, but does not go on to the next generation.
Regarding things to just appear, di ba same din with a God Creator, it just appears?
if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...
as to that 11th finger, I think that is not evolution ;)
As to the magic in case of the creator, as JT posted it, this living organism in our world was caused by an eternal "something" ... and the creation reasoning stops at that ... while the evolutionist stop short at recognizing the source of that single cell (if ever it existed) ...
For other people to justify their evolution belief, they tried to make a hybrid - creation is the first step while evolution is the process - but still will not acknowledge the eternal source of that created cell! ... at least they acknowledge, creation took place! :D ... now if creation took place, why should it just start with a single cell? ???
-
But the start of the big bang theory is like this:
SUDDENLY THERE WAS A CELL!
- then blah blah blah evolved blah blah blah
CONCLUSION: We evolved from apes! ;D
If we evolved from apes, how come they are still around, including monkeys & gorillas? ;D ;D ;D
-
If we evolved from apes, how come they are still around, including monkeys & gorillas? ;D ;D ;D
Y
-
Richard Dawkins is open to the idea of Intelligent Design - basta hindi lang Godly creation - like seeding by ETs na mala Knowing - then those ETs were seeded by higher knowledge Extra ETs daw - then you just go on with the progression of Extra Extra Extra.
-
if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...
Have you considered the concept of evolution with time?
I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes? Someone help me out please. :)
-
if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...
Evolution is a continuing process. If you fail to recognize this, take for example the mutations of viruses. We read from news how new strains of harmful viruses immune to viral suppressors arise. That's also evolution, in microscopic scale.
-
Have you considered the concept of evolution with time?
I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes? Someone help me out please. :)
This is true. If the geologic time scale (4.7 billion years) is compressed to the scale of one day, the birth of human civilization (10,000 years ago) would be represented by the last second before the stroke of midnight.
-
The sheer complexity of the cell argues in favor of intelligent design rather than random chance.
Two-minute clip from Expelled documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibucli2drc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibucli2drc)
Believing that the cell's complexity can appear by chance is like believing that you can throw a box of scrabble tiles in the air, and when they land on the floor, the scrabble tiles will spell a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
That's the concept of Romans 1:19-20, which says:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 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:
-
well ... if evolution is still continuing (or had it stopped?) ... you should have your half man and half ape thingie and so on ... excuse me, when is my wings coming to sprout? ;D
Your view on the theory of evolution is so grossly inaccurate that I'm not even sure where to begin.
Evolution happens all around us all the time. The time scales are just too long for us to see it happen.
Evolution happens only out of necessity. For survival. Fish were running out of food in the ocean so some of them evolved into animals that could survive on land where there was plenty of food. Predators got faster. Then prey got faster. Got stronger legs, and so on.
Yes you do have your "half-man half-ape" thing. They just don't exist anymore because they have died out. From australopithecus to homo, fossils have been found tracking the gradual changes that brought about modern man. Your wings will sprout when you have need of them. And it won't happen in your lifetime unfortunately. If it did, then that, believe it or not, is an argument against evolution!
Oh and to dana the apes are still here because it's fallacious to say we evolved from apes. Rather man and the apes share a common ancestor. That ancestor split into two and gave rise to apes and man.
Big Bang & Evolution did not observed anything - they just assumed thing. It can not show nor predict the behavior of the natural world - they are not even considered scientific laws! Which observation and experimental evidences proved their theories?
You are just trying to lump theories as science. Semantics!
What is scientific about the Big Bang magic? What is scientific in theories not reproducible? It started with a magic, discusses at length assumptions, and made conclusions! Even with quantifiable evidences (which do not exists), those theories can not be regarded as scientific? It even failed philosophically to warrant it as a good religion!
Lastly, a theory proven ceases to be a theory! A hypothesis proven ceases to be a hypothesis!
Theories as used by the scientific community is an integral part of science. They do not use this word the way we would use it as, say, "I have a theory on how this murder occurred." There are scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. A theory (in the context of a scientific community) is proven again and again through observable data and experiments otherwise it is abandoned.
I know I'm repeating myself here so that will be the last of that.
Evidence for Big Bang:
The universe, as observed through telescopes, is expanding. It is then logical to suppose that if we wind time backwards, the universe will start shrinking. Therefore there must have been some time in the past when all matter was contracted to a single point.
I would get into it more but there are too many facts, too many examples.
I find it really funny arguing religion and science and it's the advocate of religion calling science as magic. Isn't that my argument? :D
"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"
-
Have you considered the concept of evolution with time?
I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes? Someone help me out please. :)
I think his conclusion is merely based on the rock formation where the last image trace was that of man ... some scientist dates those rock starting from the top ... younger years .. to the bottom, older years ... but then ... contrary findings also showed the articulation of evidence is not consistent with different dating devices.
Evolution is a continuing process. If you fail to recognize this, take for example the mutations of viruses. We read from news how new strains of harmful viruses immune to viral suppressors arise. That's also evolution, in microscopic scale.
I think the right word there is not evolution ... but rather mutation ... it is like your body if you abuse antibiotic medicines ... sooner, that antibiotic will not have any impact on your body and the disease that is addressed by that medicine will not react to that medicine ...
This is true. If the geologic time scale (4.7 billion years) is compressed to the scale of one day, the birth of human civilization (10,000 years ago) would be represented by the last second before the stroke of midnight.
Yeah , I guess the geologic here means the sequence by which scientist dates some rock formation ... but 4.7 billion years is dependent on your dating device ... and again, nobody can really attest which one of the dating device is really accurate. I read each dating device have been tested and have not arrive at conclusive data when the specimen's origin is kept secret until the dating data is released.
I think if I remember right, the most baffling to the evolutionist is that when they saw human fossils side by side a creature believed to be million of years before man existed! How is that?
-
Your view on the theory of evolution is so grossly inaccurate that I'm not even sure where to begin.
Evolution happens all around us all the time. The time scales are just too long for us to see it happen.
Evolution happens only out of necessity. For survival. Fish were running out of food in the ocean so some of them evolved into animals that could survive on land where there was plenty of food. Predators got faster. Then prey got faster. Got stronger legs, and so on.
I think you're the one who obscure the meaning of evolution ... evolution means a new specie is developing from a different specie ... example, an ape becoming a man :) ... but what you are stating above is just adaptation ... in the same way, some alaskan people has to adapt with their environment and african has to adapt to theirs! It is like telling us that overtime, a crocodile place in a dessert will grow wings just to survive.
Yes you do have your "half-man half-ape" thing. They just don't exist anymore because they have died out. From australopithecus to homo, fossils have been found tracking the gradual changes that brought about modern man. Your wings will sprout when you have need of them. And it won't happen in your lifetime unfortunately. If it did, then that, believe it or not, is an argument against evolution!
Oh and to dana the apes are still here because it's fallacious to say we evolved from apes. Rather man and the apes share a common ancestor. That ancestor split into two and gave rise to apes and man.
The documented half man half ape fossils were found ... and again I say fossil ... and none living ... those are their missing links ... but think again, why are they all fossils? or probably the most logical explanation is that ... their fossils are also dubious ... will try to give you findings on this! and again I would reiterate, where are the rest of the missing links?
Now you are saying we have common ancestor as the apes - hmmn ... that is not science ... are we able to reproduce such assumption (theory) ... ah sorry ... they all died nga pala! ... is that difficult to understand?
Theories as used by the scientific community is an integral part of science. They do not use this word the way we would use it as, say, "I have a theory on how this murder occurred." There are scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. A theory (in the context of a scientific community) is proven again and again through observable data and experiments otherwise it is abandoned.
I know I'm repeating myself here so that will be the last of that.
Evidence for Big Bang:
The universe, as observed through telescopes, is expanding. It is then logical to suppose that if we wind time backwards, the universe will start shrinking. Therefore there must have been some time in the past when all matter was contracted to a single point.
I will not even go through the body of evolution thing ... well, my reason is simple, it violates the very principle of science CAUSE AND EFFECT as its foundation ... sell that to the intelligent philosophers ... it will just be dumped as well ... its starting logic is weak ... and no matter how strong your body of assumptions are, coupled with your "evidences" which I am sure does not exist ... it will remain as weak proposition, because the very foundation is weak (flawed)
I find it really funny arguing religion and science and it's the advocate of religion calling science as magic. Isn't that my argument?
"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"
Again, you are obscuring the point ... I did not call science magic ... I call Big Bang theory THE MAGIC ... and being built on MAGIC, it can not be part of science. I am not even defending a specific religion IMO - and the one I branded religion here is the BIG BANG / EVOLUTION theory.
Of course, I came from them ... My ancestor is very human ... Now may I ask you, do you believe that your ancestors are apes? or lesser than apes for that matter - perhaps a monkey?
-
I think his conclusion is merely based on the rock formation where the last image trace was that of man ... some scientist dates those rock starting from the top ... younger years .. to the bottom, older years ... but then ... contrary findings also showed the articulation of evidence is not consistent with different dating devices.
Let me refute you here. The age of the earth is measured from the oldest existing rocks found on the planet's surface, as well as meteorite samples. This is done through stable isotope dating. Aside from these, the earth's geologic history is recorded in fossils. Fossils embedded in rocks have corresponding age ranges, derived also from isotope dating and from correlation with similar rock units. It is not inconsistent, as you claim. The different dating techniques, though they have different accuracies, are in general agreement with each other. In geology, giving out an exact age will make you the laughing stock of the community.
Human civilization, generally thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, is 0.00000212 parts (or 0.000212%) of the total age of the earth (around 4.7 billion years). When you bring that down to a scale represented by a 24-hour clock (there are 86,400 seconds in a day), it gives us 0.18 seconds, or less than a second before the stroke of midnight. The oldest age of Homo sapiens' appearance in the fossil record is 130,000 years. On that 24-hour clock, this period represents only the last 2.4 seconds on that scale.
-
Let me refute you here. The age of the earth is measured from the oldest existing rocks found on the planet's surface, as well as meteorite samples. This is done through stable isotope dating. Aside from these, the earth's geologic history is recorded in fossils. Fossils embedded in rocks have corresponding age ranges, derived also from isotope dating and from correlation with similar rock units. It is not inconsistent, as you claim. The different dating techniques, though they have different accuracies, are in general agreement with each other. In geology, giving out an exact age will make you the laughing stock of the community.
Human civilization, generally thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, is 0.00000212 parts (or 0.000212%) of the total age of the earth (around 4.7 billion years). When you bring that down to a scale represented by a 24-hour clock (there are 86,400 seconds in a day), it gives us 0.18 seconds, or less than a second before the stroke of midnight. The oldest age of Homo sapiens' appearance in the fossil record is 130,000 years. On that 24-hour clock, this period represents only the last 2.4 seconds on that scale.
Yes ... and when you found fossils of human side by side with creature million years before human ... what do you call that?
So if nobody can give an exact age ... then how accurate is the dating device they are being referred to above? The device of man's creation have been programmed to detect according to what he thought should be detected. So the reading of your dating device is just compared to another reading (a reference point) which they believe to be of so million years. So it is just like your computer - tell it what you want it to do for you, and it will do it for you! That's why different dating device will not really agree with each other. Of course, if you want a conspiracy, that's also easy to do.
But again, regardless of these items - evolution and BIG bang can not stand on itself because it started on the wrong premise - or siguro, para di masakit sa tenga, me iniwan na isang stage - that is before the first cell - CREATION!
But when you start in creation ... then it is easy to see, the whole body of evolution becomes doubtful!
an excerpt:
Probably more geology is exposed and has been studied in the Grand Canyon than in any other place on earth. Therefore, the Grand Canyon is an excellent laboratory for testing the methods and explanations geologists have taught for the last century.
What is the verdict?
In words that few geologists would dispute, the Grand Canyon is a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.” Despite a century of concentrated effort by so many, their methods have produced recognized contradictions, and they have left much evidence completely unexplained.
What’s wrong?
a. evolutionary geology has been largely based on two faulty “principles,” which are actually assumptions—uniformitarianism and superposition.
b. The global flood has been rejected out of hand as a possibility.
-
That's the concept of Romans 1:19-20, which says:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 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:
Yep ... the very body of evolutionists will stand against them in the judgment day ... for the evidence of the creator rests on their body - even for a single tiny body cell, the creator can not be doubted ... let alone the vast "proofs" of the theory ...
-
I think you're the one who obscure the meaning of evolution ... evolution means a new specie is developing from a different specie ... example, an ape becoming a man :) ... but what you are stating above is just adaptation ... in the same way, some alaskan people has to adapt with their environment and african has to adapt to theirs! It is like telling us that overtime, a crocodile place in a dessert will grow wings just to survive.
Oh, but adaptation is part of evolution. It's natural selection at work. The survival of the fittest. Mother Nature won't be too kind to short necked giraffes in a world of tall lush trees. That's why today's giraffes have long necks, because the short ones couldn't compete.
And yes, if developing wings would be favorable to the survival of a certain species, nature will find a way to make that happen, by mutation or natural selection.
The documented half man half ape fossils were found ... and again I say fossil ... and none living ... those are their missing links ... but think again, why are they all fossils? or probably the most logical explanation is that ... their fossils are also dubious ... will try to give you findings on this! and again I would reiterate, where are the rest of the missing links?
I'm quite lost here. What other missing links are you looking for?
Now you are saying we have common ancestor as the apes - hmmn ... that is not science ... are we able to reproduce such assumption (theory) ... ah sorry ... they all died nga pala! ... is that difficult to understand?
Again, lost. What form of reproduction are you asking for as evidence? That man should devise genetic experiments so that he could produce a pseudo-man descendant from a lab monkey? Is this the proof you're looking for? I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution does not work that way. The evidence for evolution can not be found by transforming one species into another in a lab. Evolutionary evidence is basically by similarity of physiology. Dogs and wolves have similar body forms, therefore they must be closely related. Humans and birds both have spines, so they must belong to the same taxonomic kingdom. This is the backbone of the theory, not freak lab experiments.
-
Yes ... and when you found fossils of human side by side with creature million years before human ... what do you call that?
I call that a human buried within a dinosaur graveyard.
What are you trying to get at? That it is impossible for species of different ages to be buried alongside each other? How does that refute evolution, pray tell?
So if nobody can give an exact age ... then how accurate is the dating device they are being referred to above? The device of man's creation have been programmed to detect according to what he thought should be detected. So the reading of your dating device is just compared to another reading (a reference point) which they believe to be of so million years. So it is just like your computer - tell it what you want it to do for you, and it will do it for you! That's why different dating device will not really agree with each other. Of course, if you want a conspiracy, that's also easy to do.
I'm baffled how you come up with those statements. On the contrary, scientists are finding ways to make the undetected, detectable. To measure the minutest details. Of course technology can do only as much. But to say that these inventions were meant only to "detect what should be detected" is preposterous! It's like saying scientists intentionally deceive other people. And if you are in the scientific community, one of the most important ethical lessons you learn is that "you work for your data, don't let your data work for you". Meaning, you do not fabricate results only because they do not fit your model or hypothesis. Rather, you modify your ideas based on the observations/data you have.
Accuracy is different for various fields of science. For particle physicists, every nanosecond could be vital. For geologists (and this also varies), ages of rocks don't have to be dated to the exact year. It depends on the scope of your study. Those modeling the tectonic upheavals on the earth's surface do not need to bother themselves with ages that are accurate down to (let's say) 10 years because tectonic plates move very very very very very very slowly. It's like trying to check every pixel of a giant billboard that will be mounted on a hillside and is meant to be seen from afar.
-
Ahobbit, your posts are giving me a headache. Can you help me by giving me a Cliff's notes version of what you believe in?
Since you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, can you tell me what ideas you subscribe to with regards to the origins of the universe and the origins of the species?
-
(http://img205.imageshack.us/i/evolutionf.jpg)
... It's like saying scientists intentionally deceive other people. And if you are in the scientific community, one of the most important ethical lessons you learn is that "you work for your data, don't let your data work for you".
it is not right to make a sweeping generalizations sir ... but don't be too naive either!
QUOTE
dinosaurs, as other evolutionists assert, evolved into birds. Evolutionists claim thatArchaeopteryx (ark-ee-OP-ta-riks) is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks.
...
The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species(1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought that the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.7)
…
—T. H. Huxley (Darwin’s so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated,
It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.9
Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil … raise suspicions
When the media popularize an evolutionist claim that is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made.
One refreshing exception is provided byNational Geographic, which originally, and incorrectly, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” … Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:
It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.18
Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.
Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery.
Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years.
Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud. The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.
-
Oh, but adaptation is part of evolution. It's natural selection at work. The survival of the fittest. Mother Nature won't be too kind to short necked giraffes in a world of tall lush trees. That's why today's giraffes have long necks, because the short ones couldn't compete.
Yes it is ... but the controversy of Big Bang is not what you are refering to ... adaptation will not produce a different form nor breeding dogs will make another un-dog animal ... I want to highlight this with a picture (dont know how to upload pix ;D )
The picture shows a lizard in the horizontal ... can change its appearance to adapt ... but it is still a lizard. The vertical change is that this lizard will slowly change until perfect wings are developed at its back (this is the evolutionist contention - and missing links are nowhere to be found - nor reproducible).
QUOTED
first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution.
Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations.
Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations.
Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal” (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity.
Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time ≠ macro)
Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.
I'm quite lost here. What other missing links are you looking for?
Again, lost. What form of reproduction are you asking for as evidence? That man should devise genetic experiments so that he could produce a pseudo-man descendant from a lab monkey? Is this the proof you're looking for? I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution does not work that way. The evidence for evolution can not be found by transforming one species into another in a lab. Evolutionary evidence is basically by similarity of physiology. Dogs and wolves have similar body forms, therefore they must be closely related. Humans and birds both have spines, so they must belong to the same taxonomic kingdom. This is the backbone of the theory, not freak lab experiments.
Not that they should be reproducible in the lab - but that they should exist today reproducing their own kind being the in-between of what you are refering to ... unless of course you are saying apes just remained ape and man just remain man, and anything in between (the evolution stages from ape to man) died! ... and this goes for the rest of living beings that are being transformed to another different being ...
-
an excerpt:
Probably more geology is exposed and has been studied in the Grand Canyon than in any other place on earth. Therefore, the Grand Canyon is an excellent laboratory for testing the methods and explanations geologists have taught for the last century.
What is the verdict?
In words that few geologists would dispute, the Grand Canyon is a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.” Despite a century of concentrated effort by so many, their methods have produced recognized contradictions, and they have left much evidence completely unexplained.
What’s wrong?
a. evolutionary geology has been largely based on two faulty “principles,” which are actually assumptions—uniformitarianism and superposition.
b. The global flood has been rejected out of hand as a possibility.
I will be straightforward. I am a geologist and I'm not too familiar with the geology of the Grand Canyon because that is not my field of study. Other than that, I cannot give you my thoughts on those so-called geologic inconsistencies because they are way too vague. You did not even say what particular aspects of the Grand Canyon geology are mysterious and contradicting. And then you have the guts to come up with a "verdict" when the evidence was not even clearly presented?
Yes, during the early days of evolutionary geology, those two principles were the backbone of this emerging science. But that is sooooo 1800's! Science has drastically evolved since the days of Darwin. Modern paleontologists do not solely rely on those principles. The discovery of radioactivity opened the doors for absolute dating methods, which have been utilized by paleontologists. Developments in molecular biology has also allowed scientists to observe evolution at a microscopic scale, and more importantly in the scale of human lifetime.
I will not even comment on your global flood statement.
-
Ahobbit, your posts are giving me a headache. Can you help me by giving me a Cliff's notes version of what you believe in?
Since you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, can you tell me what ideas you subscribe to with regards to the origins of the universe and the origins of the species?
"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"
Of course, I came from them ... My ancestor is very human ... Now may I ask you, do you believe that your ancestors are apes? or lesser than apes for that matter - perhaps a monkey?
FYI ... am not putting a pun in the above question ... it is a test to those who really believe in evolution to categorically declare as they believe ...
-
You still haven't answered my simple question. What theory/belief/law do you subscribe in?
-
I will be straightforward. I am a geologist and I'm not too familiar with the geology of the Grand Canyon because that is not my field of study. Other than that, I cannot give you my thoughts on those so-called geologic inconsistencies because they are way too vague. You did not even say what particular aspects of the Grand Canyon geology are mysterious and contradicting. And then you have the guts to come up with a "verdict" when the evidence was not even clearly presented?
Yes, during the early days of evolutionary geology, those two principles were the backbone of this emerging science. But that is sooooo 1800's! Science has drastically evolved since the days of Darwin. Modern paleontologists do not solely rely on those principles. The discovery of radioactivity opened the doors for absolute dating methods, which have been utilized by paleontologists. Developments in molecular biology has also allowed scientists to observe evolution at a microscopic scale, and more importantly in the scale of human lifetime.
I will not even comment on your global flood statement.
I can give you specifics if you want :)
... and you are right, the more science unfolds so many mysteries ... as more fossils are discovered ... as science become more sophisticated ... and reasoning improved ... would you believe, the more the Big bang and Evolution became harder to believe? ... because by these time, those old assumptions where geology based their early conclusions and devices, and those old assumptions where BigBang/Evolution based their conclusions ... are little by little collapsing
-
I can give you specifics if you want :)
Yes, please post them here.
and those old assumptions where BigBang/Evolution based their conclusions ... are little by little collapsing
Or rather they are taking in new forms, branching and evolving into sounder ideas.
-
Still waiting for that answer, aHobbit...
-
The hominid Ardi was discovered in Ethiopia recently which could indicate that apes evolved from man.
The idea of the Big Bang was formulated based on the increasing knowledge of the expanding universe acquired in the last century or so through advancements in astronomy and cosmology. It is the "beginning-of-time model" that best explains CMBR that was discovered in the 60s. It is plausible to think that something huge and still expanding started from something very small and dense, with no reference to magic.
What's mind-boggling if I try to associate Intelligent Design with Godly Creation is, based on the belief that we are created in the image and likeness of Him, why start with a cell?
-
97 of our DNA is the same as the chimp.If you look at it, a 3 percent difference is only needed for the chimp to become a man.. For me, I believe that someone tweaked the genes of an ape-man, to produce man. That is why the missing link cannot still be found,Some DNA from our creators were introduced to produce man. In fact it was written in the bible, we were made in their image.. which means some DNA from them were introduced. Based on available data, this is the most logical, for me.
-
Or rather they are taking in new forms, branching and evolving into sounder ideas.
On the contrary sir ... please see the greatest hoax of evolution ... the archeopterix, my post today 01:21 am ... made use of new developed devices and can validate forgeries in the evidences ... yeah, and I admit I have to be corrected that these evidences were categorized as science ... only they are HOAX!
Big Bang?
. “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.” Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.
“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.
What's mind-boggling if I try to associate Intelligent Design with Godly Creation is, ... why start with a cell?
exactly the subsequent line of reasoning ... which is the reason why the BigBang/Evolution thingie will try to evade to go the previous stage prior to the first cell ... because it is indeed inescapable logic ... from science point of view, and from philosophical point of view!
97 of our DNA is the same as the chimp.If you look at it, a 3 percent difference is only needed for the chimp to become a man.. For me, I believe that someone tweaked the genes of an ape-man, to produce man. That is why the missing link cannot still be found,Some DNA from our creators were introduced to produce man. In fact it was written in the bible, we were made in their image.. which means some DNA from them were introduced. Based on available data, this is the most logical, for me.
Yup ... and in the logical and scientific reasoning ... creation is closer an explanation to the accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices than the proposals of bigBang & Evolution from which many so called "atheist" stand.
-
Since you seem to be avoiding answering my question. I'll just assume that you believe in creation.
Can you explain, in your own, admittedly, unique grasp of logic and language, how Creation theory incorporates all of the "accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices" that we've been reading and being published in scholarly journals?
-
I think if I remember right, the most baffling to the evolutionist is that when they saw human fossils side by side a creature believed to be million of years before man existed! How is that?
Let's run with this awe-inspiring proof of creation.
Let's suppose that Man was placed here on earth fully formed, without having undergone evolution. And the so-called proof is the "human fossils side by side a creature believed to million of years before man existed!". This, as you imply, would mean man had existed alongside dinosaurs, right?
Now can you tell me why the bible failed to mention dinosaurs? They're big-ass creatures, undeniable in their sheer size and enormity. You'd think a creature as huge as that would at least be mentioned in the bible even one teensy-weensy bit. Oh, and please don't tell me the serpent in the garden of Eden could be a dinosaur since it's a reptile, because that's just as preposterous as saying man co-existed with the T-rex.
-
Let's run with this awe-inspiring proof of creation.
Let's suppose that Man was placed here on earth fully formed, without having undergone evolution. And the so-called proof is the "human fossils side by side a creature believed to million of years before man existed!". This, as you imply, would mean man had existed alongside dinosaurs, right?
Now can you tell me why the bible failed to mention dinosaurs? They're big-ass creatures, undeniable in their sheer size and enormity. You'd think a creature as huge as that would at least be mentioned in the bible even one teensy-weensy bit. Oh, and please don't tell me the serpent in the garden of Eden could be a dinosaur since it's a reptile, because that's just as preposterous as saying man co-existed with the T-rex.
Actually I don't even need to go the Bible to prove otherwise your statement ... anyways, here are my replies, with personal compliment ;)
(1) even if the bible recorded that, you will not believe biblical creation!
(2) the very proofs of evolutionist is not self-supporting
(3) the methodologies of evolutionist is questionable
(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs
(5) not writing about dinosaur does not impact on the credibility of the Bible, in comparison with the consistent inconsistencies with Evolutions
And yes, I will be branded to have sweeping statements again ... but will post here my basis, mahaba lang talaga ... so a little patience lang po. Sir, can you PM what site to store picture so I can present them here in the thread?
-
An evolutionist 70M year-old fish fossils found - but were caught existing in Indian Ocean!
70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
-
a 240M years trilobite fossils side by side with human foot print fossils
Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite. In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found this and other apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the “heel.” The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, and its rock mold is to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Notice how the back of the heel is worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.
-
(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs
So having said that, do planets exist? It wasn't mentioned in the bible, right?
You see, you've already reinforced the argument AGAINST using the bible as the basis for scientific thought.
To cite Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory once again -- the bible is a book of faith. It is not a book on science. The bible was written way before the coming of the scientific age. It is PREPOSTEROUS to base scientific thought on a book that obviously was never written to include any of these things. That came from a priest already, a man of faith who knows the difference between his religion and his science.
And regarding Evolution. You are looking at it from an extremely linear point of view -- A became B became C. That is a totally flawed view of how evolution happens. Even my five year old knows about evolution and he never gets confused about why apes live alongside humans.
The example you cite of a trilobite fossil is intriguing because I'm also into this kind of stuff, but to base your entire belief in this and throw away a perfectly sound theory is as crazy sounding as humans just spontaneously appearing on Earth fully formed and carrying a whole set of skills and experience to actually start writing the book of Genesis.
-
So what if a trilobite, coelacanth, etc, have thrived even up to this day? If I were to see an archaeopteryx perch on my window sill, I should start to believe in biblical creation?
Actually I don't even need to go the Bible to prove otherwise your statement ... anyways, here are my replies, with personal compliment ;)
(2) the very proofs of evolutionist is not self-supporting
There are no such thing as Evolutionists. You make it sound like it's a cult or ideology that you need to prescribe to because it is scientific fact. There is such a thing as Creationists.
(3) the methodologies of evolutionist is questionable
And the inherent knowledge of biblical authors who lived a few millenia ago are not? This belief is horribly archaic, even the 21st century Vatican believes that exegesis takes precedence over a literal interpretation.
What difference does the Old Testament have over say, Gilgamesh?
(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs
(5) not writing about dinosaur does not impact on the credibility of the Bible, in comparison with the consistent inconsistencies with Evolutions
The bible, being primarily religious text and pseudo-historical sagas, are riddled with inconsistencies, just like other epics throughout history.
-
@aHobbit
Would you mind if we pin down your beliefs?
How old do you believe the earth is? Just a range would be fine.
How long do you believe man has been on this earth? Again a range would be fine.
Do you believe that animals that are no longer alive were alive at one time in the past? Like dinosaurs and mammoths.
Do you believe that all animals alive (and no longer alive if you believe in them) were all created by God individually? That is, a horse and a donkey, a tiger and a lion, a dog and a wolf were all created seperately.
Do you believe in Noah's Ark and the flood or was that merely an allegory? And if you believe in it did it kill everything on earth except those who were on the ark (except water dwellers of course)?
I think you've answered this but I'd like to clarify. Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story? That God created man and then Eve from his ribs. And then that they were expelled from Eden after eating the fruit and then populated the earth. Or was that merely an allegory?
It would really help to know where you are coming from.
-
Can you explain, in your own, admittedly, unique grasp of logic and language, how Creation theory incorporates all of the "accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices" that we've been reading and being published in scholarly journals?
The proofs are voluminous … but will try just one classic example … proving Evolutionist/BigBang somehow more dubious and … creation somehow more credible … through geology (sir allanmandy – can give you more sa email na lang dami kasi eh; sir indie boi – as requested)
Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
A Note of Caution: To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.
Corals and Caves
Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years. A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.
Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.
Index Fossils
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
Geologic Column
Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.”aMost “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order.b Even within the Grand Canyon, 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.
Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing. Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals. Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old. DNA fragments are also said to be in alleged 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bedf and in the scales of a 200-million-year-old fossilized fish. DNA is frequently reported in insects and plants encased in amber, both assumed to be 25–120 million years old
These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit. They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.
Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber. The same bacteria, Bacillus, have been found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old. Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old. Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)
Proteins. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins, soft tissue, and blood compounds preserved in dinosaur bones. As with DNA, these remains should not last 70–150 million years, as is claimed for those bones. All this should discredit these old ages.
Parallel Layers
Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (Anunconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (calledconformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena, one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit
Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory.
-
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young —possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.
Helium
One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere at a much faster rate than helium escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.a
Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a
Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.c Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in youngzircons.
Excess Fluid Pressure
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock.a If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.b
River Sediments
More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.a
Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.
Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.c
Moon Recession
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.
Supernova Remnants
In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so.a These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen.b So, the Milky Way looks young.
-
@aHobbit
Would you mind if we pin down your beliefs?
- you dont have to do this - isn't it clear enough? However, I dont want to prove creation through religious stuff - let's make it scientific and logical!
How old do you believe the earth is? Just a range would be fine.
- AM sorry not to give you an estimate of the earth's age. However, in my guess work following biblical time lines, humans will not be more than 7000 years
How long do you believe man has been on this earth? Again a range would be fine.
- answered above
Do you believe that animals that are no longer alive were alive at one time in the past? Like dinosaurs and mammoths.
- yes, it is proven - so this is not a matter of belief! - Science I would say!
Do you believe that all animals alive (and no longer alive if you believe in them) were all created by God individually? That is, a horse and a donkey, a tiger and a lion, a dog and a wolf were all created seperately.
- of course!
Do you believe in Noah's Ark and the flood or was that merely an allegory? And if you believe in it did it kill everything on earth except those who were on the ark (except water dwellers of course)?
- want to see some Noah's ark footage? ;) ; Based on science findings (evidences of fossils), most probably - but whether it is all, I have not read scientific evidence to that effect. However, analyzing biblical account, it says yes! I believe the account without thinking ;D
I think you've answered this but I'd like to clarify. Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story? That God created man and then Eve from his ribs. And then that they were expelled from Eden after eating the fruit and then populated the earth. Or was that merely an allegory?
- if it is a matter of belief, Yes, Adam & Eve is true - Eve composition is based on Adam's rib (not ribs ;) ), and they were removed from the paradise, and populated the earth.
It would really help to know where you are coming from.
-
So what if a trilobite, coelacanth, etc, have thrived even up to this day? If I were to see an archaeopteryx perch on my window sill, I should start to believe in biblical creation?
Nothing :D ... I know even if you, or atheists who have not checked the foundation of their evolutionistic stand, are awash with so many evidences pointing to the Biblical creation, you will not believe it! ;D
There are no such thing as Evolutionists. You make it sound like it's a cult or ideology that you need to prescribe to because it is scientific fact. There is such a thing as Creationists.
I have not read your declaration in my readings ... I read books of evolutionists!
And the inherent knowledge of biblical authors who lived a few millenia ago are not? This belief is horribly archaic, even the 21st century Vatican believes that exegesis takes precedence over a literal interpretation.
Sorry ... am not an agent of vatican ... and I dont subscribe to their dogmas ... That's why some of them do not believe in Biblical creation ... probably some of them also do not believe in the existense of Jesus ... what do you think of their purgatory? ... crusades? ... inquisitions? ... sorry for being OT here ... How can you identify a tree ... by its fruits! ;)
What difference does the Old Testament have over say, Gilgamesh?
I have not digged on Gilgamesh ... but will post once I had the time to check on him ;)
The bible, being primarily religious text and pseudo-historical sagas, are riddled with inconsistencies, just like other epics throughout history.
Oh really? Have you read it cover to cover? ... I did! ... perhaps you can give one pronounced inconsistency for the benefit of the reading public so they can assess your assertion ... Of course, I will answer if it is within my reading history ... Though I am sure also that even if the bible is proven consistent, more consistent than your evolution, you will not believe in it and rather believe in evolution!
-
Nothing :D ... I know even if you, or atheists who have not checked the foundation of their evolutionistic stand, are awash with so many evidences pointing to the Biblical creation, you will not believe it! ;D
Frankly, this is a copout. It's not a valid argument at all.
-
So having said that, do planets exist? It wasn't mentioned in the bible, right?
You see, you've already reinforced the argument AGAINST using the bible as the basis for scientific thought.
Sir Indie Boi ... you missed the point ... Did I use the bible to prove creation? The Bible is not science - it is a manuscript ...
A MANUSCRIPT THAT PLAINLY DECLARED THE BEGINNING - AS IN FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT CAST.
The more appropriate statement is that science agree with the Bible ... more than it agreed with evolution ...
Or the Biblical account can be proven by Science, but evolution can not be proven by science!
Or the biblical account can be supported by philosophical reasoning but Evolution can not!
To cite Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory once again -- the bible is a book of faith. It is not a book on science. The bible was written way before the coming of the scientific age. It is PREPOSTEROUS to base scientific thought on a book that obviously was never written to include any of these things. That came from a priest already, a man of faith who knows the difference between his religion and his science.
I will not question his "faith" ::) ... yeah ... I suddenly remember the inquisition for those earth flatters! :D
And regarding Evolution. You are looking at it from an extremely linear point of view -- A became B became C. That is a totally flawed view of how evolution happens. Even my five year old knows about evolution and he never gets confused about why apes live alongside humans.
Did I? I beg your pardon ... I think the true evolutionists held that ... though somehow, they have to flip-flop!
The example you cite of a trilobite fossil is intriguing because I'm also into this kind of stuff, but to base your entire belief in this and throw away a perfectly sound theory is as crazy sounding as humans just spontaneously appearing on Earth fully formed and carrying a whole set of skills and experience to actually start writing the book of Genesis.
Since when Evolution and BigBang became sound theory? ... it is just a theory to be declared sound! Oh I get it. Yes it just sounds. No evidences ... oh sorry with believable evidences ... for so many years ... until proven a hoax!
And isn't it discomforting ... we have a God who can inform a writer how the earth was created in a more believable manner ... than those who have no God at all and made an artistic imagination?
Sorry ... OT again ... now lets go back to Science!
Science ... taking its trend of making the foundation of evolution thinner (my dating system) as evidences and more accurate technology is presented ... will wipe out to oblivion Evolution & Big bang theory ... 8)
-
Science ... taking its trend of making the foundation of evolution thinner (my dating system) as evidences and more accurate technology is presented ... will wipe out to oblivion Evolution & Big bang theory ... 8)
Wait, the dating system you presented here actually came from you?
-
It might be better to just give the links. For example,
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences23.html
Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)
-
It might be better to just give the links. For example,
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences23.html
Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)
Walt Brown? A guy who founded his own ministry and who's expertise is not related to an earth science?
A hack who does not have any compelling scientific studies as proof of his creation "science"?
This is not proof. This is more of a lampoon than anything else. Please cite a true scientist.
-
I'm a creationist, but in this case I have to agree with sir Verbl Kint.
The Center for Scientific Creation is a religious ministry headed by Walt Brown, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).
YEC is a pseudoscientific religious belief that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, and that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
YECs claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that YEC claims have no scientific basis.
-
Walt Brown? A guy who founded his own ministry and who's expertise is not related to an earth science?
A hack who does not have any compelling scientific studies as proof of his creation "science"?
This is not proof. This is more of a lampoon than anything else. Please cite a true scientist.
That's why I did not quote Walt ;) ... in fairness, I guess the guy is not proving creation through science ... what he does is try to take evidences that events in the bible took place ... so photos here, there, and everywhere ... and whether the photos are genuine as presented, I can not comment because I have no way to investigate its validity ... but since we want to be scientific here ... walt's works are irrelevant!
Wait, the dating system you presented here actually came from you?
;D
Yup ... kidding that if I calculate the DECAY in all the RADIO(TV)ACTIVE assumptions of evolutionists from the corrections it is getting from more recent archeological evidences, present life forms, and technological advances in tooling ... then I can calculate when all evolutionist false ASSUMPTIONS will be wiped out ;D ... my dating technique 8)
It might be better to just give the links. For example,
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences23.html
Too many to digest ... One have to read many of them ... and be technical in each - too cumbersome actually ... some of them, am already familiar with since I was in HS, 32 years ago :) ... it is better to get more understandable portion ... overall, a very in-depth articulation
It is also interesting to note in the maker of this site ... that he refuses to take religious evidences ... just stick to scientific findings to prove either evolution or creation ...
-
It is also interesting to note in the maker of this site ... that he refuses to take religious evidences ... just stick to scientific findings to prove either evolution or creation ...
Because religion and science should not mix. Only stupid people do that. The Bible is NOT a historical or a scientific document. Teaching creationism as if it's a science is totally idiotic. It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain and b.) religion and science are two seperate entities.
-
Ahobbit, I am getting this vibe that you are a Christian Scientist.
-
Because religion and science should not mix. Only stupid people do that. The Bible is NOT a historical or a scientific document. ... b.) religion and science are two seperate entities
Religion & science should not mix? Well, generally, this is correct ... however, will it be more palatable for us who believe in both science and religion ... that those two should not contradict each other? ... if your religion contradict science, then I think it is time to think harder!
and sorry about this ... is it not more ST*PID to believe in two contradicting beliefs ... ONE's RELIGION and SCIENCE?
The Bible contains historical events!
Teaching creationism as if it's a science is totally idiotic. It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain ...
Creationism is not science ... in the same way evolution is not a science ... what is science in both cases is when you gathered scientific evidences and performed scientific models to present either side ... So following your logic that says that teaching creationism as science is IDIOTIC ... then it follows that TEACHING EVOLUTION AS SCIENCE IS ALSO IDIOTIC ... in fact, MORE IDIOTIC than teaching creationism as science!
It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain and b.) religion and science are two seperate entities.
You should look deeper that being shallow how you take the original evolutionists ... theistic evolution is just an EVOLUTION in the belief of EVOLUTION theory ... for the simple reason that there are lots of inescapable false assumption built into the EVOLUTION theory ...
So some evolution believers has to water down some of its false assumption ... and as I said, as more evidences and proofs surface to strengthen biblical presentation of the beginning of life ... am afraid, the ultimate belief in evolution will suddenly become CREATIONIST EVOLUTION! ;D
So again ... let us make some dating again ;D ;D ... the biblical presentation of the beginning of life has been unaltered even from the original manuscript of the bible (except of course for some verb tense, or exact words use to depict meaning in both aramaic and greek languages ... then translated to general english) in 1611 ... and has come into heavy attacks in 1800 due to a very limited scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation when the evolution theory came ...
But looking at the evolution theory ... it has to undergo continuous massive rewriting (and probably flip flopping) ... and try to evolve the belief in EVOLUTION as scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation became even more sophisticated ... perhaps they should issue complete list of ERRATUM in their previous publication so as to put the public informed (which I doubt they will do) ... talk about conspiracy of crooked scientists, blinded atheists and baseless evolutionist!
@Verbl Kint ... Sir, did not find reference of Gilgamesh in the Bible I am using ... though some references in the Internet ... did not care to dig anymore ... but I hope you can post what about Gilgamesh with this atheism and agnosticism discussion ... thanks
-
It is possible to be consistent ... whether belief whether is logical with all presented documentation ... whether ones science or ones personally-held belief about God and its corresponding basis.
Evolution theory is just like the book The Da Vinci Code that played on human reasoning ... having started with all unproven assumptions, made some conclusion which were interpreted by the reading/watching public as credible ... but looking back at the very foundation (premise or ground) of its case - it is hollow and will not stand on its own! ... an artistic product of one's idle imagination ... I am not surprised (an idle mind is satan's favorite workplace ;D )
-
I don't think you got what I meant. :)
-
@Verbl Kint ... Sir, did not find reference of Gilgamesh in the Bible I am using ... though some references in the Internet ... did not care to dig anymore ... but I hope you can post what about Gilgamesh with this atheism and agnosticism discussion ... thanks
From wikipedia:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Ancient Iraq and is among the earliest known works of literary writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
-
But looking at the evolution theory ... it has to undergo continuous massive rewriting (and probably flip flopping) ... and try to evolve the belief in EVOLUTION as scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation became even more sophisticated ... perhaps they should issue complete list of ERRATUM in their previous publication so as to put the public informed (which I doubt they will do) ... talk about conspiracy of crooked scientists, blinded atheists and baseless evolutionist!
You know what, if Science would not allow massive rewritings in order to correct what is wrong or inaccurate, then the Physics would still be based on Newtonian Laws and Einstein would probably be branded as NON Scientific or even baseless.
As in most scientific theories, I would have to guess that "the dating system"is based on a mathematical model that is far too complex for non-math-wizards to grasp. That's why us normals end up with calculators. And I would suppose that the mathematical models of dating are far too complex compared to Beginning Of Life = Genesis Pages XXX.
-
Good article from Time ... 2005 pa, pero maganda pa rin:
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101050815_400.jpg)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html
-
You know what, if Science would not allow massive rewritings in order to correct what is wrong or inaccurate, then the Physics would still be based on Newtonian Laws and Einstein would probably be branded as NON Scientific or even baseless.
As in most scientific theories, I would have to guess that "the dating system"is based on a mathematical model that is far too complex for non-math-wizards to grasp. That's why us normals end up with calculators. And I would suppose that the mathematical models of dating are far too complex compared to Beginning Of Life = Genesis Pages XXX.
Again, you're just categorizing the theory as science ... a theory can be rewritten so it comes closer to fact (as evidences comes along) ... the theory of relativity has nothing to rewrite as they can be presented in models and experimentations ... these theories became strengthened as we progressed into high-end science ... WHILE theory of evolution became weakened as evidences and high end science come by ...
You see ... only until recently, when tooling and discoveries do provide weaknesses in earlier norms and standards of measurement ... that somehow, all assumptions will be challenged, and corrected, than accepting it as totally correct in the light of recent models on the contrary --- no matter how complex one assumed it is!
-
My point simply is, why consider the act of correcting something that is wrong or inaccurate as non scientific? At least the theoretical scientists dont stop at nothing to try to question the validity of all existing theories - regardless of how many mistakes are committed.
BTW, if Im not mistaken, the Theory of Relativity is still incomplete and will be rewritten once a genius can prove the Theory of Everything scientifically.
Time pers, bakit parang Pabili nakita ko kanina? Namalikmata ba ako?
-
Good article from Time ... 2005 pa, pero maganda pa rin:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html
America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)
-
pabili din basa ko.
-
Time pers, bakit parang Pabili nakita ko kanina? Namalikmata ba ako?
+1 me too ;D
America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)
hallerrrr!!! america attacked by the liberals?......again? as in flower-power 60s 70s?
am i hearing rush limbaugh???
seeing RED again? (better dead than red? ) ::) ;D
-
Try to watch Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings.
-
Question for aHobbit,
You say that you would like to keep this discussion scientific and not religious and that's great. You further say that current dating methods are inconclusive, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Even though different scientific methods from fields of science as varied as geology, astronomy, moleculary biology, archeology, cosmology and others, mostly agree that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.
My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.
-
A Note of Caution: To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.
Wrong! Any good geochemist will choose samples that have not been contaminated, altered or disturbed. We do not just pick up rocks then send them immediately to the lab to have them dated. It involves a rigorous process of sample preparation that involves carefully picking suitable mineral grains under the microscope. And if ever the minerals that were picked are not entirely preserved (for example, daughter isotopes have escaped from the system), the radiometric age they yield are in fact, the minimum age, meaning the true age can actually be much older.
Corals and Caves
Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years. A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.
Coral and stalactite/stalagmite growth rates are not definite. These may vary depending on the rate of water transport or the temperature/sedimentation state of the coral's habitat. Thus, more accurate ages of corals and stalactites/stalagmites will depend not on the rates of their growth, but on isotopic dating.
Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.
I don't know what on earth is a "blind test" in radiometric dating. And I have yet to read a journal or even a news article that says radioactive decay rates aren't constant.
"A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood."
Umm, okay. What a compelling "evidence" that is. Can you cite scientific studies on this particular case? Very intriguing.
Index Fossils
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
If this so-called "global flood hydrodymanic mechanism" were true, then the largest particles and fossils will be deposited first (and that includes the large dinosaur bones), while the light ones such as trilobite, coelacanths and the smaller simpler life forms will be deposited on top. Also, storm and flood deposits would not show excellent stratification as those seen in famous geologic outcrops (the Grand Canyon for instance).
Geologic Column
Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.”aMost “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order.b Even within the Grand Canyon, 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.
This can be explained by Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift. New crust is being created everyday, and since the Earth is not expanding, old materials are being destroyed and recycled. FYI, the oldest know crustal rocks are 4.3 billion year-old amphibolite rocks in Quebec, Canada. Also, stratigraphic breaks can be explained by unconformities and non-conformities (results of erosion and non-deposition, respectively).
Parallel Layers
Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (Anunconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (calledconformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena, one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit
Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory.
Any sane geologist would not label as "conformable" two parallel stratigraphic units that contain different sets of fossils that belong to different geologic times. It is possible that in the case your are trying to present, an angular unconformity exists between the two units. Paleontology is a systematic discipline that uses many tools for dating, not just correlation. Discoveries submitted to respectable journals undergo rigorous peer reviews. New findings that challenge conventions are scrutinized and adopted if evidence is convincing and sound.
-
Question for aHobbit,
You say that you would like to keep this discussion scientific and not religious and that's great. You further say that current dating methods are inconclusive, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Even though different scientific methods from fields of science as varied as geology, astronomy, moleculary biology, archeology, cosmology and others, mostly agree that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.
My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.
Yeah! What aHobbit is doing is trying to disprove scientific dating techniques and use their limitations to bolster his claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. We want to hear actual findings by your "science" that definitely show that the Earth is really that young.
-
The problem in this whole argument is that aHobbit claims that "science" is magic and any kind of scientific study or findings are merely "theories" or "hoaxes." What I don't understand is why evolution, to aHobbit's mind is a "theory" and yet Creation is a practically a law. What's the basis for this? Don't tell me that since it's in the bible it's the truth and nothing but.
I'm getting this feeling that at some point here, names like Erich Von Daniken and Zacharias Sitchin will make an appearance and be considered incontrovertible scientific authorities.
-
perhaps we can only understand all of these if we return to our source and become one again with the source.;)
Im so amused on how the human mind works on the subject. More ideas please. ;D
-
Question for aHobbit,
My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.
I have not read a dating mechanisms that will agree together to put the age of the earth to whatever figure - though in creation science, a number of possible tools to age the earth using various methods showed so much younger earth compared to the evolutionist depiction ...
thus I said in my post, I can not site specific age ... however, if you ask me, based on my belief of the account of bible depicting human history, it is more or less 7,000 years ... but you should take note, I am not proving the age of human using the Bible, I am just stating that if I made the Bible my reference ...
Thus, whether the Bible is correct (or my interpretation of the Bible is correct) as to the age of human life ... or the age indicated by evolutionist is correct for that matter ... then let science continue its investigation ... it should be noted however that some dating mechanism used by evolutionist before may need adjustments
Yeah! What aHobbit is doing is trying to disprove scientific dating techniques and use their limitations to bolster his claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. We want to hear actual findings by your "science" that definitely show that the Earth is really that young.
You read it wrong again ... it is early tools in science that have their respective limitations ... and it is not my depiction ... it is caused by the inevitable development within science ... and what put darwinian theory to so much controversy is that ... it incorporates with it lots of assumptions basing it in the 18xx technologies ... only to be made more exacting in our present time
You may have read in the saga of this evolution thing ... that even the validation of that BOGUS archeopterix materials that champion their missing links ... can only be detected by 1986 ... and finally rested 1990 ... so thus these dating techniques
The problem in this whole argument is that aHobbit claims that "science" is magic and any kind of scientific study or findings are merely "theories" or "hoaxes." What I don't understand is why evolution, to aHobbit's mind is a "theory" and yet Creation is a practically a law. What's the basis for this? Don't tell me that since it's in the bible it's the truth and nothing but.
I'm getting this feeling that at some point here, names like Erich Von Daniken and Zacharias Sitchin will make an appearance and be considered incontrovertible scientific authorities.
Ow, come on! You are just trying to obscure the discussion :P ... I DID not say Science is not magic ... YOU DID! ;D ... What I did say is that EVOLUTION IS THE MAGIC! :o and EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY ;D ... and EVOLUTION IS JUST A PIECE OF MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN BY AN IMAGINATIVE MAN ;D ... A theory yet UNPROVEN supported by lots of UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS ... BASED ON 1800 TECHNOLOGIES, UNVALIDATED EVIDENCES, AND INCOMPLETE PROOFS!
And it is no secrets even among scientist, and academicians ... that there have been no substantial validation of the theory that have happened since it was popularized ... in fact, it has further weakened!
As usual ... You can put the Bible and the Theory of Evolution in the same footing - a written manuscript ... but science will prove either one or the other since they poles apart ... and the way science is exposing its flaws, YOUR EVOLUTION is preparing for a burial ...
-
As usual ... You can put the Bible and the Theory of Evolution in the same footing - a written manuscript ... but science will prove either one or the other since they poles apart ... and the way science is exposing its flaws, YOUR EVOLUTION is preparing for a burial ...
You mean as the science is exposing the flaws of the evolution theory, it proves the validity of the creation theory? Ganon ba kasimple yon?
You dont even consider exposing the flaws of the evolution theory as DEBUGGING the theory (until a more plausible scientific theory comes out) which is an integral step in scientific method?
-
...
on isotopic dating.
I don't know what on earth is a "blind test" in radiometric dating. And I have yet to read a journal or even a news article that says radioactive decay rates aren't constant.
"A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood."
the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism was passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.
However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
read on ...
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/262/
-
You mean as the science is exposing the flaws of the evolution theory, it proves the validity of the creation theory?
No ... it sinks the evolution theory deeper into the pit! ;D without any impact on your creation "theory" ;D
Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.
-
however, if you ask me, based on my belief of the account of bible depicting human history, it is more or less 7,000 years ...
Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.
What I did say is that EVOLUTION IS THE MAGIC!
So, in your world, evolution, which has generated a lot of findings and studies is magic compared to Creation, where you can't even present us with any kind of incontrovertible proof that will prove Creation is true?
I shall end this with my strong beliefs against fundamentalism. Ahobbit flat earthers a few posts ago and you can feel his derision for such people. Unfortunately, fundamentalist belief is much the same as the Inquisition of the dark ages. There is a conscious suppression of free thought and the growth of science in favor of half-truths, fantasies and lies just to uphold what they think is the ONLY resource man needs in order to exist and thrive. Fundamentalism is dangerous in that it wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into that age when religion was a tool used for oppression and the subjugation of human creativity and free thought.
-
the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism was passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.
However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
read on ...
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/262/
The calculations (which includes decay rates) shown in that paper relies heavily on the assumption that the universal Carbon-14 supply was created entirely during the beginnings of the Universe. Just so you'd know, IT WAS NOT. Elements are continuously supplied by stars, in birth, maturity and death. These can be captured by a planet's atmosphere, or from solar/meteoritic debris that showers upon a planet. Carbon-14 is produced in the Earth's atmosphere from the interaction of neutrons and Nitrogen-14. The amount of C-14 present in the atmosphere is reflected by the amount incorporated by every living organism that breathes air. Thus, if C-14 levels at a given time period are low, C-14 incorporated in existing organisms are also lower. Because the modern industrial age has released significant amounts of low-C-14 gases, present organisms have lower amounts of this isotope in their bodies, and thus poses a limitation to dating carbonaceous materials from this period (the effect will give us younger ages). However, while that is true, the decay rate of C-14 is still constant.
As for the presence of "anomalous" amounts of C-14 is samples "expected" to have zero C-14, this may be explained by contamination from biogenic sources like bacteria (yes, young bacteria can thrive amongst sediments that are millions of years old) and radioactive materials from surrounding rocks.
-
Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.
So, in your world, evolution, which has generated a lot of findings and studies is magic compared to Creation, where you can't even present us with any kind of incontrovertible proof that will prove Creation is true?
Missed it again bro ;D ... Creation is not proving anything in creation, for creationist, creation is a belief, might be a fact for others ... and unless you want to prove creation wrong, will draw you back to science and do the leg work ... On the other hand, your EVOLUTION, inspite of trying hard to come up with its evidences, suffers much of criticism based on new discoveries and technologies ... I will just wait to have EVOLUTION 6 feet under the ground as we await more baffling discoveries in this 21st century!
I shall end this with my strong beliefs against fundamentalism. Ahobbit flat earthers a few posts ago and you can feel his derision for such people. Unfortunately, fundamentalist belief is much the same as the Inquisition of the dark ages. There is a conscious suppression of free thought and the growth of science in favor of half-truths, fantasies and lies just to uphold what they think is the ONLY resource man needs in order to exist and thrive. Fundamentalism is dangerous in that it wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into that age when religion was a tool used for oppression and the subjugation of human creativity and free thought.
I agree with you ... let's kick that kind of fundamentalism that you knew ... it will not help anyone 8) ... on the other hand, will the other cliff not offer you the same death? ;D
Big Bang - The Bucks Stop There! ;D ;D ;D Bucks as in $$$
http://www.icr.org/article/7/245/
-
As for the presence of "anomalous" amounts of C-14 is samples "expected" to have zero C-14, this may be explained by contamination from biogenic sources like bacteria (yes, young bacteria can thrive amongst sediments that are millions of years old) and radioactive materials from surrounding rocks.
Of course, that's why they tried to remove those contaminations or so ... and stil not come up to the billion years magic ... not even close to the 180,000 years! ;D ;D ;D
Has the Big Bang Been Saved? I will save now for the candles during its wake! ;D
http://www.icr.org/article/1109/245/
-
Of course, that's why they tried to remove those contaminations or so ... and stil not come up to the billion years magic ... not even close to the 180,000 years! ;D ;D ;D
Has the Big Bang Been Saved? I will save now for the candles during its wake! ;D
http://www.icr.org/article/1109/245/
And of course you would not get the "magic" billion years from C-14 because the half-life is only 5370 years!!! C dating is only good up to ages of 60,000 years. If you want the billion year ages, use U-Pb or Nd-Sm.
-
Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.
And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....
-
And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....
That will be like us eating danggit. Everything digested to porridge state. ;D
-
Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove? What???
Ganon ba yon??? ::)
For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing. Anyways.
-
Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove? What???
Succinct. Direct to the point. And true.
It's funny that the burden of proof is on evolutionists and despite all of the evidence, it's still considered "magic". Creationists just smugly say, "it's in the bible so you shouldn't even question it."
-
And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....
LOL ;D
-
aHobbit: Approximately, only 1/3 of the Bible has basis on historical fact. In fact, historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have yet to uncover any hard, actual evidence that the story of Moses even happened.
-
America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ...
Is this the same "godly governance and mental reference (Bible)" that directly and indirectly was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos from 1899 to 1903?
-
Is this the same "godly governance and mental reference (Bible)" that directly and indirectly was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos from 1899 to 1903?
Ive forgotten most of Filipino-American War. Did we lose that many people? Could you kindly elaborate about this portion of our history in reference to this "godly governance and mental reference" theory?
-
There's the Balangiga Massacre. American soldiers killed up to 3000 Filipinos.
-
For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing. Anyways.
or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...
-
America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)
It is not true that America was founded on Christian principles. On the contrary, the opposite is true --- that America was in fact founded on principles of religious neutrality.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. That is why it begins with "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Compare that with the Phil. Constitution, which begins with: "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God ..."
Whenever the US constitution refers to religion, the reference is intended to exclude, rather than include it. Hence: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).
The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8 ).
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
The oft-repeated line that we hear these days - that America should "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded" - is the battlecry of the religious right. They're the ones who work vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation and impose their narrow morality on others.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
-
or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...
or the bible is the word of god.
in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.
please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened.
-
or the bible is the word of god.
in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.
please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened.
Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?
-
or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...
water if turned into ice will return only as water...
If the physical component of man returns to its original form if it dies, then whatever it would be may be a proof of the materials or original components to which it was created. Magiging hangin ba katawan natin pag tayo ay namatay? Just think of the answer. ;)
-
And of course you would not get the "magic" billion years from C-14 because the half-life is only 5370 years!!! C dating is only good up to ages of 60,000 years. If you want the billion year ages, use U-Pb or Nd-Sm.
and yet it was accepted by scientist as credible dating device, isn't it?
Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/245/
Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove? What???
Ganon ba yon??? ::)
For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing. Anyways.
simple lang yan clondalkin ... if you read the thread title ... atheism and agnosticism ... and since atheism anchor its belief on evolution ... then I will be deal with it here ...
I am not here to prove creation nor present scientific findings in its support ... but if you can raise scientific findings that refute biblical statements and records ... why not raise it here if you want ... or raise it in a separate thread re creation para di OT here ...
Neither evolution failed to prove why the big bang and the first cell happened ... from whence it came ... at least creation stated the Intelligent source ... while evolution started from a question mark ...
If you brand both of them as theory ... I have no issue with that ... science, in its continuing development and discoveries will determine the last theory standing ... to me, it is easier to see which one is it! 8)
Succinct. Direct to the point. And true.
It's funny that the burden of proof is on evolutionists and despite all of the evidence, it's still considered "magic".
Of course, whose responsibility it is to prove evolution ... the non-believers of that manuscript? ;D ... and can you site which evidence evolution got that stand as strong evidence of evolution to date? ... it started as all assumptions ... and then they tried to get evidences ... and as science check the evidences & assumptions ... what do they get? ... can somebody show the picture of their ancestors? :)
-
aHobbit: Approximately, only 1/3 of the Bible has basis on historical fact. In fact, historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have yet to uncover any hard, actual evidence that the story of Moses even happened.
Correct ... but that does that mean some of the statements are false already ... or will it remain a theory (if you wish) ...
in the same way the assumptions incorporated in the theory of evolution will either stand or fall as scientific evidences mounts ... if one of the many assumption is not yet proven, it will remain an assumption! ... if some of the asumptions are proven wrong, or not as consistent as previously regarded, then those assumptions become false.
Unchanging speed of light?
Another fascinating article in the same issue of New Scientist deals with the theories of an Italian scientist, Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, ...
...
João Magueijo, . . . had been formulating an explanation of the evolution of the Universe. . . . But there was a heavy price to pay. . . . He was suggesting that the speed of light has been slowing ever since the big bang.9
...
His VSL cosmology leads to various other conclusions which would be even more difficult for us to deal with (for example, it negates the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of energy conservation)!
But it does seem to reinforce our frequent observation that modern cosmology has become nothing but a morass of conflicting mathematical models, which few besides Ph.D. theoretical physicists really understand, and which they seem to replace with other models every week or so. Remember those 50 variations in the inflation model!
Another important example of cosmological uncertainty is the current notion that the stars and other measurable physical bodies comprise only 5% of the "matter" in space. The rest is either "dark matter" or "dark energy," neither of which has ever been observed, but which seems theoretically to be needed. But as one scientist observes referring to this unseen sea of unknown material:
We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.11
Space does not allow discussion of the numerous other problems and controversies in cosmology, but they are legion. But all of this accumulation of speculation may, indeed, give us the answer we seek. Why should we pay any attention at all to these cosmological speculations? No one outside this professional clique of specialists in higher mathematics and theoretical physics can really understand them— especially when they disagree with each other and repeatedly revise their theories anyway
http://www.icr.org/article/498/245/
-
Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?
I remember Ayn Rand's book... The virtue of selfisness..
Now please prove me wrong... I may see the light.
-
I am not here to prove creation nor present scientific findings in its support ... but if you can raise scientific findings that refute biblical statements and records ... why not raise it here if you want ... or raise it in a separate thread re creation para di OT here ...
Neither evolution failed to prove why the big bang and the first cell happened ... from whence it came ... at least creation stated the Intelligent source ... while evolution started from a question mark ...
Paki clear Ahobbit? Because you can't, or, your faith tells you that you don't have to prove anything?
Bro, in case it's not clear, everybody is giving you enough latitude to prove what you believe about creation. Nobody will raise the OT flag if you would only present your case in a clear manner. In fact, I'm actually hoping you would be crystal clear on your evidence and explanations of creation as I personally believe in the existence of God, yet wondering on how to interpret what's written in the Holy Book.
Restate ko lang what has been asked of you in many different ways - ok semantics here and there - but I think everybody is simply waiting for you to enlighten us on creation because we have read enough about your perceived flaws of the theory of evolution. Fine, evolution started from question mark and the idea seems to be flawed; and if I understand you accurately, you are quite certain that the theory of evolution will become extinct while you seem to be so sure of what you believe as regards the beginning of time (or is it the origin of man?). Care to explain then?
Imagine, if you could actually prove creation scientifically, you would be the richest and most powerful man in the world.
-
I remember Ayn Rand's book... The virtue of selfisness..
Do u just remember or is it the actual principles in this book you follow? Pls be firm on what you beleive in so that I will know your perspective.
-
Do u just remember or is it the actual principles in this book you follow? Pls be firm on what you beleive in so that I will know your perspective.
Just a guide including Atlas Shrugged.
-
Just a guide including Atlas Shrugged.
AYN RAND advocates the Principles of OBJECTIVISM. I will further check her stand point and get back to you.
In the meantime, I suggest you also read the book WITHOUT A PRAYER by John Robbins.
-
can somebody show the picture of their ancestors? :)
Can you? And don't go posting pictures of your parents, grandparents or great grandparents. :)
-
Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?
Why is a person's standards a prerequisite before, as you said, you "shed some light" regarding the bible? Are you suggesting that a moral standard that is not based on the Bible will somehow prevent a person from being enlightened? Just curious.
-
Imagine, if you could actually prove creation scientifically, you would be the richest and most powerful man in the world.
hmmn ... you always show that you always missed the point ... who in the world say you can prove the actual creation or the actual BigBang ... proving here, my guess, is through scientific test & experimentation ...
But let's go to one realistic view between creation and evolution that makes them poles apart ... and you'll see the same science findings/evidences will, if not prove, will support only one of them
CREATION: life forms are distinct ... apes are apes ... and humans are humans!
EVOLUTION: life forms evolved ... apes developed from ?? ... humans developed from apes!
SCIENCE: In Honor of Darwin's 200th Birthday: Evolution's Biggest Gaps
A very interesting article was recently published in New Scientist magazine in honor of the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth.1 Sixteen of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists were asked to identify the biggest gaps remaining in evolutionary theory. Apparently this exercise was a real test of the evolutionary faith, as only 6 out of the 16 scientists directly answered the question by giving a description of some sort of gap that needs resolution.
Of the 6 biologists who made it a point to answer the question, a number of comments highly relevant to the creation model were mentioned. Several of the scientists stressed the difficulty of explaining how life began in the first place. Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won’t develop “spontaneously.”
...
It is now known that genes themselves are quite complex in their structure and in their expression, both individually and in highly-complex overlapping networks. ... The problem is that this is essentially impossible, as the coordinated changing of multiple genes—literally networks of genes—would have to occur simultaneously for many developmental traits to achieve a beneficial outcome. ... It does not require a statistician to see that the odds are stacked against the idea that gene networks, and the creatures that depend on them, were invented by mutations.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4554/295/
You see, what science does, in its present development, is not really to prove evolution or creation ... as some here insinuate that science is partisan and have taken a side of the issues (for evolution they say ;D) ... but science is neutral in showing us facts as it tries to unearth discoveries ... authenticate archeological findings ... validate processes really happens ... provide mathematical models ... etc etc
So based on this findings: let's go back to the 2 contentions -
CREATION: Did we start as distinct life form ... started as human ... and end as human?
EVOLUTION: Did we developed from evolution ... started as apes ... and end as human?
Which theory is weakened? and which one strengthened? Evolution can not claim of strengthening their assumptions that clear science has to offer ... not yet :)
-
CREATION: life forms are distinct ... apes are apes ... and humans are humans!
EVOLUTION: life forms evolved ... apes developed from ?? ... humans developed from apes!
I doubt if you really are reading the Bible. I'm no devout Christian but from my understanding
CREATION: apes came from nothing...and humans aren't all that distinct because they came from clay/dust/mud/earth...and women came from a man's rib
please tell me how this reconciles with all your readings. If you can just give me one fantastic theory to back-up even one entity (you choose if it's ape, man or woman) then I guess you've got one valid argument going for you
-
I doubt if you really are reading the Bible. I'm no devout Christian but from my understanding
CREATION: apes came from nothing...and humans aren't all that distinct because they came from clay/dust/mud/earth...and women came from a man's rib
please tell me how this reconciles with all your readings. If you can just give me one fantastic theory to back-up even one entity (you choose if it's ape, man or woman) then I guess you've got one valid argument going for you
So yours is the theory of clayvolution ;D ... just kidding!
o siya, para sa iyo ...
My statement above is just a simplification of the different positions of the CREATION/EVOLUTION theories concerning the development of life form ... but I dont want to expound it anymore ... its known to the debaters of evolutionists and creationists anyway ...
-
Why is a person's standards a prerequisite before, as you said, you "shed some light" regarding the bible? Are you suggesting that a moral standard that is not based on the Bible will somehow prevent a person from being enlightened? Just curious.
Is it not one's prerogative to ask? For me, knowing what a person firmly believe will help me understand why he chose not to believe or doubt the bible as the word of God.
-
^in a debate, you discuss ideas, not the people participating in it... ;)
you match thoughts not beliefs
-
Is it not one's prerogative to ask? For me, knowing what a person firmly believe will help me understand why he chose not to believe or doubt the bible as the word of God.
+1 ;D
;D Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na ;D. I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth ;D
-
hmmn ... you always show that you always missed the point ... who in the world say you can prove the actual creation or the actual BigBang ... proving here, my guess, is through scientific test & experimentation ...
I think Ive been trying to help most of the members reading this thread understand your gist better because you never seem to want to go straight to the point. And in my opinion, it has worked because if I had read the above post and your most recent ones last week, I would not have asked for concise clarifications.
But thanks for the endless effort to reply anyways. Yeah Ive probably missed your point again though.
-
Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?
Clondalkin ... perhaps this is the help you expect to benefit the general readers ... to you with compliments ... ( I thought am the original for not classifying EVOLUTION as SCIENCE :D ) ... The following excerpt is quite a mouthful though ... and probably expounded my point ::)
Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer
…
A Brilliant Career
Ernst Boris Chain (1906–1979) was born in Berlin, Germany, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology.
…
A Major Founder of Antibiotics
…
Chain was selected as a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize specifically for his research that demonstrated the structure of penicillin
…
An internationally respected scientist, Chain is widely regarded as one of the major founders of the whole field of antibiotics.
…
A "Hypothesis Based on No Evidence"
One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory."13
…
A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."15
…, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.15
…
Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.13 … he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma (mine: a religion?) . He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."16
Problems with Evolution
…
"living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive."15 Chain recognized that the problem was not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest, and that mutations do produce some variety:
…
He added that evolution "willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species."15
…
Chain noted our modern knowledge of the genetic code and that its function in transmitting genetic information seems quite incompatible with classical Darwinian ideas of evolution.17
…
… he stated: It is easy to draw analogies between the behavior of apes and man, and draw conclusions from the behavior of birds and fishes on human ethical behavior, but ...this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human behavior. …
...
… he said...that it was ridiculous to base serious decisions on religious belief. ... seems to me a very sweeping and dogmatic conclusion...scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and...may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact....This has happened time and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to the biological field, where the concepts and theories are much less securely founded than in physics and are much more liable to be overthrown at a moment's notice.15
…
..... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.19
…
He wrote that scientists "looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility" would do well to "turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals."19
Conclusion
… Chain is only one of many modern scientists who have concluded that modern neo-Darwinism is not only scientifically bankrupt, but also harmful to society
http://www.icr.org/article/3767/295/
-
+1 ;D
;D Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na ;D. I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth ;D
If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?
My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry! ;D ... how about the decision of lower life forms?
-
or the bible is the word of god.
in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.
please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened.
Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?
Clondalkin ... perhaps this is the help you expect to benefit the general readers ... to you with compliments ... ( I thought am the original for not classifying EVOLUTION as SCIENCE :D ) ... The following excerpt is quite a mouthful though ... and probably expounded my point ::)
Im really missing the point of what's wrong with my question to RU9. Arent RU9 mention about his standard? Is it wrong to ask then what is it?
In fact RU9 replied properly thats why I really respect him for that. He knows where he stand and his guidelines.
-
+1 ;D
;D Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na ;D. I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth ;D
+1. Maraming pang bagay dito sa mundo na hindi pa kayang ipaliwanag ng tao gaano man maging advance ang ating teknolohiya.
-
If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?
My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry! ;D ... how about the decision of lower life forms?
makikisingit lang din po. I am a Christian but also not a devout one and has also been wondering with the number of religions in the world, having their own God, how sure are we that we are praying/worshipping the one true God? Also, will God be basing His judgement by just being an evolutionist? Should everything that cannot be explained attributed to God? Why can't He just show himself, just like in the story of Moses where He manifested Himself and end every doubt about His existence. Once and for all settle the score and confirm that the words of the Bible truly came from Him. In a way, I think we will have a unified religion and live harmoniously.
-
makikisingit lang din po. I am a Christian but also not a devout one and has also been wondering with the number of religions in the world, having their own God, how sure are we that we are praying/worshipping the one true God? Also, will God be basing His judgement by just being an evolutionist? Should everything that cannot be explained attributed to God? Why can't He just show himself, just like in the story of Moses where He manifested Himself and end every doubt about His existence. Once and for all settle the score and confirm that the words of the Bible truly came from Him. In a way, I think we will have a unified religion and live harmoniously.
There is a passage in the bible (new testament ata) when the people are asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus responded with a no. No sign will be given. I don't want to sound all religious here but look at how sinful this world is? (based on who is breaking the ten commandments) If God shows himself, thats it, tapos na. We will have a thinking hey God is there and we can sin all we want anyway in the end we can ask for forgiveness easily diba? ;D If we don't get what we want, we will rebel. We will never be closer to God this way imo. Also I think God has his reasons. I don't want to quote him but He already showed himself during the old testament (based on the stories) days, so he knows what he is doing ;D
Its better to go thru life thru faith imo. A great example is this: A person who believes in God does not pray or go to church very often, but when there is a true test (ex. he/she/family getting cancer, etc.) in his/her life he/she will usually pray more and spend more time in church, making sacrifices or be a better person. Why is that? Bec we need God during that time. Desperate na tayo eh. I think this is the best reason na why God is not showing himself. We will be closer to him if we just have faith.
Im not saying my religion is right and the rest is wrong. I just believe there is a God and he created all of these wonderful things on earth, the universe etc. ;D..Just watch the planet earth series ;D and see how amazing everything is ;D
Ok masyado na ako religious, sorry, yun lang opinion/view ko ;D
-
There is a passage in the bible (new testament ata) when the people are asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus responded with a no. No sign will be given. I don't want to sound all religious here but look at how sinful this world is? (based on who is breaking the ten commandments) If God shows himself, thats it, tapos na.
There was a sign given, actually.
The Bible says no man can see God and live (Exodus 33:20). That is why the Father sent His Son, who took the material form of man.
The Israelites of the day were waiting for the Messiah, as promised in the Old Testament. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but many of them had doubts. So they asked Jesus for a sign to prove that he was indeed the one.
Matthew 12:38-40 says: "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 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."
It means that because the people were evil, they will be given no sign except this: the death and resurrection of the Christ.
God gave man the sign, yet many still do not believe. Ano, isa pang sign ang ipapadala? Useless din ... hindi pa rin maniniwala kahit padalhan ng isa pang sign ... ;)
... I just believe there is a God and he created all of these wonderful things on earth, the universe etc. ;D..Just watch the planet earth series ;D and see how amazing everything is ;D
There's a Bible verse that says basically the same thing:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1, NIV)
-
God gave man the sign, yet many still do not believe. Ano, isa pang sign ang ipapadala? Useless din ... hindi pa rin maniniwala kahit padalhan ng isa pang sign ... ;)
This had also come to mind considering how humans think, people will still be in doubt if the manifestation is really from the divine One. Also, if everything is created, does our Creator also have a Creator?
-
Also, if everything is created, does our Creator also have a Creator?
No, the Creator does not have a creator.
God is eternal. He has always existed and He is not bound by time.
The Bible puts it this way: " ... from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2)
-
and yet it was accepted by scientist as credible dating device, isn't it?
Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
I did mention that C-14 could be produced subterraneanly by bacteria and contamination from U-Th radioactivity of surrounding rocks, right? And again, carbon dating is only credible for 60,000 years or less materials. You seem to forget that there are other radioactive dating techniques that are able to determine much older ages than a few thousand years. "Proving" C-14 as anomalous is not enough to discredit all those other dating methods.
By the way, you guys might be interested in the following article. I haven't had the time to read it in its entirety but some of the points raised in this thread as arguments for creationism were answered in the said article:
"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist)
-
If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?
My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry! ;D ... how about the decision of lower life forms?
Hmm, I don't know. Something tells me God will not punish all those scientists (which includes me) for believing or accepting the theory of evolution. I'm quite certain our eternal salvation will depend not on our scientific beliefs but on how "righteously" we have lived our lives. I'd hate to think of God as vindictive towards people who at some point in their (early) life, found joy and fulfillment in science, unknowing that to the eyes of some fundamentalists, the path they chose would lead them to eternal damnation. Was I already destined to go to hell the moment I realized the rationality of the theory of evolution when I was 15 years old? Gosh, I seriously hope not.
-
By the way, you guys might be interested in the following article. I haven't had the time to read it in its entirety but some of the points raised in this thread as arguments for creationism were answered in the said article:
"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist)
That debate will never end. Here's a point-by-point answer from the Reason & Revelation magazine:
15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2093
-
Creationists are kind of like people wanting 1 plus 1 to equal 4 and gets offended when someone else says it's really 2.
-
If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?
My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry! ;D ... how about the decision of lower life forms?
The implication here being, evolutionists will go to hell for not believing in Creation? Where in the Bible did it say that?
-
Im really missing the point of what's wrong with my question to RU9.
Its is annoying.
Hoping that you will be me, I complied.
So what do I get for my effort?
-
Creationists are kind of like people wanting 1 plus 1 to equal 4 and gets offended when someone else says it's really 2.
No, that's not true. Don't think that all creationists are "Young Earth Creationists". On the contrary, very few of them are.
Take the case of the Roman Catholic Church, which is creationist, yet has officially stated that faith and evolution are not in conflict.
For Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."
Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.
-
The implication here being, evolutionists will go to hell for not believing in Creation? Where in the Bible did it say that?
If its true, the evolutionist who does not believe Christ as the savior will go to hell and eventually feel the pain of being toasted eternally. The safest i think is just to believe that Christ can save you - thats all. ;) With all the discussions here, i am beginning to check on the bible and its nice.. ;) More ideas please.
-
... The safest i think is just to believe that Christ can save you - thats all. ;) ...
That's not Biblical.
That's the American fast-food style: all you need to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you're saved! That's what you hear from the American Bible-thumpers and their Pinoy imitators.
Sounds great, and it must have been a quick and easy way to recruit new members, but that's not how it works.
James 2:14-26 clarifies that faith alone is not sufficient, because "faith without works is dead":
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18Yea, 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.
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
-
Ngeek ang hirap pala maligtas ::) mukhang wala yatang maliligtas kung strikto masyado ang creator natin. Kasi naman libo ang religion dito sa mundo at lahat nito ay nagsasabing sila ang maliligtas sapagkat ang aral nila ang totoong aral na dapat sundin ng tao. :-[
Di ba dapat pinapahiwatig nya directly sa atin kung saan tayo aanib na relihiyon?
Sa kin lang try ko na lang talaga na gumawa ng mabuti sa kapwa at paniwalaan na siya ang aking tagapagligtas. Kung mali ito siguro wala na akong magagawa. Naniniwala akong galing ako sa kanya at wala ng iba at kung susunugin nya ang kaluluwa ko, para na rin siguro nyang sinunog sarili nya-- pero paniniwala ko hindi naman nya ito gagawin dahil isa siyang maunawain na Diyos. :)
-
If its true, the evolutionist who does not believe Christ as the savior will go to hell and eventually feel the pain of being toasted eternally. The safest i think is just to believe that Christ can save you - thats all. ;) With all the discussions here, i am beginning to check on the bible and its nice.. ;) More ideas please.
How about the non-Christians? Will they automatically go to hell when they die? What if their God is the One not ours?
-
Its is annoying.
Hoping that you will be me, I complied.
So what do I get for my effort?
Well, Im really sorry if it annoys anyone. And the very reason I ask is because I want to reply. Now give me sometime to understand your principles of Objectivism to see how I can defend the BIBLE as the true Word of God and true moral standards.
Di naman kasi dapat basta basta na lang sasagot or mag share from the BIBLE. You need to ask wisdom from the Holy Spirit otherwise the Word of God is wasted. And I had so much respect for the Word of God for it is holy. As Matthew 7:6 says “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you".
-
How about the non-Christians? Will they automatically go to hell when they die? What if their God is the One not ours?
For those who had not read the bible or heard the Word of God, they will be judged accdg to the law.
So the question now for non-believer is, how do they measure up against the law?
-
Dennis I think that would be a tough question. But in reality it is a question that encompasses all religion on earth. The question on which is which is even a tougher question. Choice is based on luck and gut feel under the situation. But if still in doubt, just adopt what is common in all these groups and that is -- be good and nice to everybody - just think that what you sow is what you reap. These are not religious principles but universal that may apply to everybody. And still maybe, believe on the power of your God the one you believe in to save you. At least this gives you a peace of mind. ;)
-
Ngeek ang hirap pala maligtas ::) mukhang wala yatang maliligtas kung strikto masyado ang creator natin. Kasi naman libo ang religion dito sa mundo at lahat nito ay nagsasabing sila ang maliligtas sapagkat ang aral nila ang totoong aral na dapat sundin ng tao. :-[
Di ba dapat pinapahiwatig nya directly sa atin kung saan tayo aanib na relihiyon?
Sa kin lang try ko na lang talaga na gumawa ng mabuti sa kapwa at paniwalaan na siya ang aking tagapagligtas. Kung mali ito siguro wala na akong magagawa. Naniniwala akong galing ako sa kanya at wala ng iba at kung susunugin nya ang kaluluwa ko, para na rin siguro nyang sinunog sarili nya-- pero paniniwala ko hindi naman nya ito gagawin dahil isa siyang maunawain na Diyos. :)
Now matter how many religion or denomination names there are only two types, 1st is Salvation by WORKS, 2nd Salvation by GRACE of GOD. The latter calls for personal relationship with God in which you are entrusting your life to Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Salvation in itself is not so hard since its not by your effort, hardest part is the WALKING by FAITH which will transform us into HIS new creation ... as a true BORN AGAIN.
What our generation has forgotten is that our God is both Father and King. As Father, He loves us and understand thats why HE is always willing to forgive. However as King, HE needs to be revered and respected. And as He is a JUST ruler, HE will punish those who disobey. All had fallen short to the KING's standard, we are all destined for punishment but because of HIS love, He made a way for our salvation which is thru our Lord Jesus Christ. Kaya "He is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father except thru Him."
Anyone wants to know more? Pls drop me a PM.
-
How about the non-Christians? Will they automatically go to hell when they die?
For those who had not read the bible or heard the Word of God, they will be judged accdg to the law.
So the question now for non-believer is, how do they measure up against the law?
Non-Christians can also be saved, but they will be judged according to how they responded to their own conscience.
Jesus Christ is the path to salvation. This means that you must obey the laws of Jesus Christ. That's why He called Himself the way, the truth and the life.
The laws of Jesus Christ are different from the laws of Moses. For example:
Law of Moses: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)
Law of Jesus: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)
Note the huge difference. Under the laws of Moses, you must physically perform the act before you can be guilty of adultery. Under the laws of Christ, just thinking about it is already adultery.
The Bible defines sin as the "transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). However, even if you are not a Christian and you are not within Christ's laws, you still have a knowledge of right and wrong within you, and you will be judged according to the "law" implanted in your own conscience.
Romans 2:12-16 explains it this way:
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
===========================================
Nasa bibliya na ang mga sagot, mga kapatid. Ang problema, hindi lang natin binabasa.
-
For those who had not read the bible or heard the Word of God, they will be judged accdg to the law.
So the question now for non-believer is, how do they measure up against the law?
it works both ways...how do YOU measure up against THEIR belief/law is as valid as your statement about THEM not conforming to YOURS
in other religions you are the infidel and the non-believer
If you must really practice your faith then you'd realize that it was never about imposing yours on other people ;)
-
it works both ways...how do YOU measure up against THEIR belief/law is as valid as your statement about THEM not conforming to YOURS
in other religions you are the infidel and the non-believer
If you must really practice your faith then you'd realize that it was never about imposing yours on other people ;)
U didnt get what I mean, imposing has nothing to do with it. And I will never be measure up against other Religions law because Im not under their law.
For non-believer of Christianity, they will be judged accdg to the law both in their conscience and their written law. Lahat naman ng Religion telling their followers to do good. So how to they measure up within their standards is the basis.
For christians, they will be judged accdg to the Word of God.
-
Well, Im really sorry if it annoys anyone. And the very reason I ask is because I want to reply. Now give me sometime to understand your principles of Objectivism to see how I can defend the BIBLE as the true Word of God and true moral standards.
Di naman kasi dapat basta basta na lang sasagot or mag share from the BIBLE. You need to ask wisdom from the Holy Spirit otherwise the Word of God is wasted. And I had so much respect for the Word of God for it is holy. As Matthew 7:6 says “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you".
Why quote the Bible? You have not established it as the word of god? How can I believe it?
-
For those who had not read the bible or heard the Word of God, they will be judged accdg to the law.
So the question now for non-believer is, how do they measure up against the law?
Yup, exactly my point. Do we really need religion to be saved? Will it be enough that we have lived our lives righteously?
Nasa bibliya na ang mga sagot, mga kapatid. Ang problema, hindi lang natin binabasa.
Agree, that's for us Christians.
-
U didnt get what I mean, imposing has nothing to do with it. And I will never be measure up against other Religions law because Im not under their law.
For non-believer of Christianity, they will be judged accdg to the law both in their conscience and their written law. Lahat naman ng Religion telling their followers to do good. So how to they measure up within their standards is the basis.
For christians, they will be judged accdg to the Word of God.
so now religion/salvation is relative to every individual's faith...well then you don't have any business telling everyone how to run their lives if that's your point
imposing has all to do to it when you keep on telling people how to live their lives as if they don't know how or to assume that they don't know how...
-
Those who believe that JESUS CHRIST is the savior are called Christians. Right?
I ask because a group i know here in my office segregate themselves and called themselves Christians while they just call others as just plainly catholics or whatever. ::)
-
If its true, the evolutionist who does not believe Christ as the savior will go to hell and eventually feel the pain of being toasted eternally. The safest i think is just to believe that Christ can save you - thats all. ;) With all the discussions here, i am beginning to check on the bible and its nice.. ;) More ideas please.
Jerix, that's the most sensible thing to do... if you're in doubt, then check it out :)
Nasa bibliya na ang mga sagot, mga kapatid. Ang problema, hindi lang natin binabasa.
Mukhang yan nga problema ... So instead of reading other reference materials, why not check out the Bible itself? How much time do we spend surfing the internet? Watching movies? If you have a lot of questions regarding the integrity of the Bible, then spend time understanding it. :) Bawasan ng konti ang oras sa ibang gawain. You don't have to approach it in the context of religion... what's written in the Bible will speak for itself.
Those who believe that JESUS CHRIST is the savior are called Christians. Right?
I ask because a group i know here in my office segregate themselves and called themselves Christians while they just call others as just plainly catholics or whatever. ::)
I think it's pretty much the same when catholics call the other group as "born-again yan" or "christian yan" ... :)... or "muslim yan". Hindi naman maiwasan din na magsama-sama sila, since they understand each other, natural reaction na lang din siguro yun.
Cheers!!!
Compaq
-
Those who believe that JESUS CHRIST is the savior are called Christians. Right?
I ask because a group i know here in my office segregate themselves and called themselves Christians while they just call others as just plainly catholics or whatever. ::)
Its truly quite offensive and divisive. Its like saying Catholics dont believe in Jesus or only so called Christians got the exclusivity of Jesus and Salvation.
But actually not all who believe that JESUS CHRIST is the lord and savior are TRUE CHRISTIANS and will be saved. Jesus says in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter."
When you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you become BORN AGAIN and God will give you the understanding of His Kingdom. As written in John 3:3 "Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot SEE the Kingdom of God.” This also explains why it is impossible to understand the full message of the bible unless you believe in it.
Then as BORN AGAIN, you still need to walk to enter Gods's Kingdom. as Paul says in Philippians 2:12 "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;".
In Ephesians 2:9 says, "Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it". Salvation is only by God's grace which also enables you to walk accdg to HIS will and enter His Kingdom. The reward for those who obeyed and did good works will have the CROWN of LIFE.
so now religion/salvation is relative to every individual's faith...well then you don't have any business telling everyone how to run their lives if that's your point
Well if its for me I will rather keep the good news of salvation for myself and my loved ones only. But Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16 "And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned." So walang personalan, sumusunod lang po sa ako sa utos.
imposing has all to do to it when you keep on telling people how to live their lives as if they don't know how or to assume that they don't know how...
Everyone wanted to draw the line between FORUM, IMPOSING and DISCUSSING. Its better to let the MODS be the judge of what can and cannot be posted.
Hi Mods,
Pls advise. Thanks.
-
Well if its for me I will rather keep the good news of salvation for myself and my loved ones only. But Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16 "And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned." So walang personalan, sumusunod lang po sa ako sa utos.
good for you then...no speak, no slave...
-
Its truly quite offensive and divisive. Its like saying Catholics dont believe in Jesus or only so called Christians got the exclusivity of Jesus and Salvation.
Yes - you hit it right! kaya i always correct anybody calling them Christians, kasi it will brand others who are not members of that sect as non Christ believers.
-
Napunta na sa Bible ang usapan. Buklatan na ng mga verse. ;D
Ingat kayo at baka pasukin tayo ng INC or ADD dito at mahamon tayo sa diskusyon.
-
I'm curious. How do you reconcile this...
Di naman kasi dapat basta basta na lang sasagot or mag share from the BIBLE. You need to ask wisdom from the Holy Spirit otherwise the Word of God is wasted. And I had so much respect for the Word of God for it is holy. As Matthew 7:6 says “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you".
And this...
Well if its for me I will rather keep the good news of salvation for myself and my loved ones only. But Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16 "And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned." So walang personalan, sumusunod lang po sa ako sa utos.
-
I'm curious. How do you reconcile this...
And this...
Would you still share or talk a person who is already trying to ridicule you? Proverbs 18:2 says "Fools have no interest in understanding;they only want to air their own opinions." And Proverbs 23:9 also says "Don’t waste your breath on fools,for they will despise the wisest advice." And finally Proverbs 26:4 "Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,or you will become as foolish as they are."
Holy Spirit will give also you the wisdom when to speak and what to say esp in times of trials. As written in Mark 13:10-12, "For the Good News must first be preached to all nations. But when you are arrested and stand trial, don’t worry in advance about what to say. Just say what God tells you at that time, for it is not you who will be speaking, but the Holy Spirit."
-
Well if its for me I will rather keep the good news of salvation for myself and my loved ones only. But Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16 "And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned." So walang personalan, sumusunod lang po sa ako sa utos.
Please be careful when a Bible citation includes Mark 16:9-20, also known as the "Longer Ending" of Mark 16.
Bible scholars agree that Mark 16 ends with verse 8, and that verses 9-20 is a forgery that was added during the early 2nd century. http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html)
Moreover, the entire Longer Ending is not consistent with the rest of the Bible. Here are some examples:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (verse 15).
- This commandment, which was given to the apostles, was an impossibility, since it was impossible for the apostles to have traveled the whole world during their time.
Even until now, this commandment cannot be fulfilled. Magdala ka lang ng Bible sa Saudi, makukulong ka ... paano mong matutupad ang utos na yon, na "all the world" ang requirement?
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (verse 16)
- Sabi dito, if you're a non-believer, impiyerno ka na. This contradicts Romans 2:12-16, which teaches that non-believers will be judged according to their conscience.
Tapos, requirement daw ang baptism sa salvation. E bakit yung "good thief", who received salvation when he repented, wala namang baptism (Luke 23:42-43).
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. (verses 17-18)
- According to these verses, "these signs shall follow them that believe", implying that if you do not have these signs, you are not a believer. To prove that you are a member of the Church, you must perform miracles, drink poison, etc.
This verse contradicts 1 Corinthians 12, which clearly explains that not all members of the Church during their time were given the gifts of healing, speaking in tongues, etc., and that it is wrong to think that all members were given the same gifts:
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? (1 Cor. 12:28-30)
Sadly, Mark 16:18 has been cited to justify the practices of snake-handling and of drinking strychnine and other poisons. Believe it or not, there's a sect called "Church of God with Signs Following", a group of snake-handlers and poison drinkers who base their beliefs on that verse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_with_Signs_Following).
That's why we must be careful when citing scripture.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_j_edopcw6H8/SsGYrOwduRI/AAAAAAAAA7g/PjQqyF0iwpc/snake%20handlers_thumb%5B3%5D.jpg?imgmax=800)
http://thecargoculte.blogspot.com/2009/09/taking-up-serpents.html#
-
How about the non-Christians? Will they automatically go to hell when they die? What if their God is the One not ours?
i am a "nonpracticing" catholic. i used to be an ofw in saudi. doon islam ang religion. meroon din silang mga hard-core fundamentalists.
noong bago pa ako, isang sundalo na di ko kilala, biglang lumapit. tinanong kung muslim ako o hindi. sinagot ko- hindi. sinabi sakin agad (tho di ko agad naintindihan kasi arabic) - "you will burn in hell!" WOW!!! dapat pala pag tinanong kung muslim o hindi, ang sagot ay "Inshallah" - God-willing. pag yun sinagot, di nila pwede kontrahin. kasi si Allah lang ang makakaalam kung sa pag-gising ko bukas ay gustuhin ko na magpa-convert.
ganyan din ang mga fundamentalist ultra-right wing christians!
ang sarap nila pagsamahin!!! ;D
___
ang nakakatuwa- sa saudi may born-again na nahuling nagpi-preach ay muslim na ngayon ;D yun naman kasama ko sa trabaho na matinding makipag-diskusyunan ukol sa relihiyon. napaaway ayun pag-uwi sa kampo - yousuf na ang pangalan. ;D
___
sayang wala na ang mga debatista sa plaza miranda tapat ng simbahan ng quiapo. dun kayo pumunta gabi-gabi ang tindi ng bangayan, halos lahat may dalang biblia. kung meron pa ngayon, sure may ADD na kasama doon at may muslim na rin. kasi malapit ang opis ng ADD at maraming muslim na sa quiapo
-
may TIME magazine issue noon na ang cover ay CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM
The Legacy of Abraham's Children
Monday, Dec. 21, 1970
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904591,00.html
Monday, Nov. 05, 1973
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908127,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908127-2,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908127-3,00.html
pero alala ko meron din nung 90s o early 00s
nakakatawa nga eh sa Jerusalem nandoon ang wailing wall ng hudyo (jews/judaism), via crucis ng mga kristiano at sa itaas ng wailing wall- ang temple mount - 3rd holiest site para sa mga muslim/islam. tatlong relihiyon na di magkasundo.
kung buhay kaya si abraham? pag-umpugin nya ang mga anak? ::) ;D
add:>
The Legacy of Abraham
Monday, Sep. 30, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003355,00.html
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/20020930_107.jpg)
-
makikisingit lang din po. I am a Christian but also not a devout one and has also been wondering with the number of religions in the world, having their own God, how sure are we that we are praying/worshipping the one true God? Also, will God be basing His judgement by just being an evolutionist? Should everything that cannot be explained attributed to God? Why can't He just show himself, just like in the story of Moses where He manifested Himself and end every doubt about His existence. Once and for all settle the score and confirm that the words of the Bible truly came from Him. In a way, I think we will have a unified religion and live harmoniously.
Jesus already shown the problem with this desire ...
In the beginning, God commanded Adam & Eve not to ... and yet they rebelled against God ....
Then God raised HIs spoke man in the likes of Moses & other prophets ... they rejected the messenger ... and ask the prophet to ask God for a king instead (King Saul)
Then God sent prophets ... and the people rejected His messanger again ... in fact, some of them were killed
Then finally He sent Jesus ... the manifestation of God ... though in a created substance ... yet unblemished by man's original rebellion (sin) ... though few believe in Him ... majority rejected Him ... and crucified Him ...
Jesus ... in "The Rich Man and Lazarus" showed both dead men with Abraham ... the rich man saw feeling the penalty of all his rejection, wanted to alert his siblings of the reality of punishment, and requested God to send somebody from the dead to warn those living people ... the answer is quite true (if you ask me) ... that no matter who you sent, they will just be rejected!
-
And this is true with those hard core and those just riding on the evolution theory ... there have been recent findings of "million year" dinosaurs fossils that are somehow preserved ... to the point that blood trace can still be detectable (in 2005) ... the DNA can easily be extracted ...
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2817/282/
These evolutionist truly do not subscribe to that mantra "to see is to believe" ... for them, the more appropriate is "TO SEE IS NOT TO BELIEVE!" ;D ;D ;D ... they are nearer to the truth that dino DNA is not similar to a chicken nor to amphibians! ... they need the funding to continue on the EVOLUTION research!
So you see ... no matter what they see in the laboratory (empirical rasoning) ... the evolution is a dogma ... not a science!
-
If its true, the evolutionist who does not believe Christ as the savior will go to hell and eventually feel the pain of being toasted eternally. The safest i think is just to believe that Christ can save you - thats all. ;) With all the discussions here, i am beginning to check on the bible and its nice.. ;) More ideas please.
James 2 tackled something else ... and it is not about being saved ... (sori modes, OT lang po sandali)
Why Jesus came: John 1:12 (New International Version)
12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
What has been promised through Christ: John 3:16 (New International Version)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
Who exemplified this righteousness imputed on somebody that is not worthy?
Abraham: Romans 4:5 (New International Version)
5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
In fact, what makes the Pharisees & Saducees really stumbled on Jesus is that they believe good works will lead them to salvation ... the Bible says NO!
Romans 4:13 It was not through law (good works) that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. ... 15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Why? because the law was given to inform us that we have not subcribed to them! It is a mirror by which every human should look at and see his dirt!
Galatians 3:19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions ... 21 For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ... 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. (that is ... we need somebody to be delivered from the curse that the Law showed us!)
However, if you insist to follow the Law, it is also possible - how? Galatians 3:10
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (at all times for all the law ... can you?)
See ... the reason Christ came is that nobody can be saved through his own effort ... and does Christ need your own effort to save you ... nope ... He can do it alone ... and nobody will share in that glory, only God alone! ...
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:21 ... for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Lastly: Ephesians 2:8-9 says
Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version)
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.
ah ... nobody can boast about his good works ... because to God, all your good works are as filthy rags (the looks of a feminine napkin) Isaiah 64:6 All of us are ... unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
To the believers of grace: FAITH = SALVATION + GOOD WORKS (a person who got the faith will enjoy salvation and will show the fruit of salvation - the evidence - through good works - James 2 - salvation & good works acceptable to God are both gifts of GOD)
To the believers of otherwise: SALVATION = FAITH + GOOD WORKS (good luck!)
thanks MOD
-
How about the non-Christians? Will they automatically go to hell when they die? What if their God is the One not ours?
JT already answered ... the Law will be applied to you ... inescapable judgment indeed!
-
If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?
The implication here being, evolutionists will go to hell for not believing in Creation? Where in the Bible did it say that?
Got it wrong again bro ... the statement above implies that evolutionist has put more things on the line than creationist ... in fact, everything ;D ...
creationist only put his lifetime ... probably 100 years of his life ... as a sacrifice to stand on creation!
evolutionist put on the line eternity ... never ending consequences ... as a sacrifice to stand for evolution!
The very heart and foundation of evolution is rejection of The Creator! ... the willful and conscious defiance to the declaration of the creation itself that The Creator exists! ... the never-ending rebellion and hatred of man to the existence of God ...
so just fill the cup - to the brim ... so that when the Law is applied to them, The Law will be JUST & REASONABLE!
-
so what happens to the creationists and evolutionists after they die?
there are so many religions/churches - catholic, protestants- baptists evangelists, methodists, presbyterians, etc, christian fundamentalists(born-again), hindi born-againsts ah ;D jews, muslims, buddhists, orthodox catholics, etc. most if not all claiming they are the chosen ones that will be saved!
who will be saved? how about the infidels (as muslims call us) or the unbelievers (as born-agains call us)?
will it rain fire and brimstone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone
-
The very heart and foundation of evolution is rejection of The Creator! ... the willful and conscious defiance to the declaration of the creation itself that The Creator exists! ... the never-ending rebellion and hatred of man to the existence of God ...
Whoa really? A good man who lives a good and humble life but believes in evolution will burn in hell? Your God is scary.
-
Whoa really? A good man who lives a good and humble life but believes in evolution will burn in hell? Your God is scary.
I know, right?! This "god" already condemned me to hell when I was just barely in my teens. And to think I was a regular churchgoer back then. Where's the justice in that?!
-
Got it wrong again bro ... the statement above implies that evolutionist has put more things on the line than creationist ... in fact, everything ;D ...
creationist only put his lifetime ... probably 100 years of his life ... as a sacrifice to stand on creation!
evolutionist put on the line eternity ... never ending consequences ... as a sacrifice to stand for evolution!
So I guess it's only fair that evolutionists get more financial benefits, better insurance coverage and higher salaries, since the occupational risks involved in being an evolutionist is so much greater than for a creationist.
And quite frankly, I don't buy this. We understand COMPLETELY what your previous statement means. Under your moral standards, evolutionists staked their very souls and will inevitably go to hell, pure and simple. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist or a Biblical scholar to read between your lines.
-
page 9-last part of the time mag article>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003355-9,00.html
It is set after Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, whichever son it was. The moment of truth is just past; the father's hand is stayed. As the boy lies stunned on the altar, God gazes down with pride and compassion and promises to grant his any prayer. "O Lord, I pray this," the boy says. "When any person in any era meets you at the gates of heaven--so long as they believe in one God--I ask that you allow them to enter paradise."
-
page 9-last part of the time mag article>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003355-9,00.html
It is set after Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, whichever son it was. The moment of truth is just past; the father's hand is stayed. As the boy lies stunned on the altar, God gazes down with pride and compassion and promises to grant his any prayer. "O Lord, I pray this," the boy says. "When any person in any era meets you at the gates of heaven--so long as they believe in one God--I ask that you allow them to enter paradise."
Kawawa naman ang mga Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, atbp.
Buti pa mga Satanista kasi nag-iisa lang ang diyos nila.
-
Ano nga ba uli topic dito?
-
kahit nalilihis tayo paminsan-minsan i enjoy reading opinions. Basta no harsh words and no resorting to "argumentum ad hominem" this thread will be peaceful. ;)
-
Got it wrong again bro ... the statement above implies that evolutionist has put more things on the line than creationist ... in fact, everything ;D ...
creationist only put his lifetime ... probably 100 years of his life ... as a sacrifice to stand on creation!
evolutionist put on the line eternity ... never ending consequences ... as a sacrifice to stand for evolution!
The very heart and foundation of evolution is rejection of The Creator! ... the willful and conscious defiance to the declaration of the creation itself that The Creator exists! ... the never-ending rebellion and hatred of man to the existence of God ...
so just fill the cup - to the brim ... so that when the Law is applied to them, The Law will be JUST & REASONABLE!
As usual you just muddled everything with gibberish. You just confirmed what I said. ::) Sardaukar and Allanmandy came to the same conclusions.
But wait, you'll just say we got it wrong again. Ang nakakatawa lang dito -- all of these other guys are presnting well thought out opinions supported by statements that have a logical progression. All we get from you is "you got it wrong", "The law will be just and reasonable", and all of the other statements that, when dissected, don't carry any kind of logical meat inside it.
You're not articulating anything important, what you're giving us are platitudes.
-
Whoa really? A good man who lives a good and humble life but believes in evolution will burn in hell? Your God is scary.
Exactly. That's why I personally have a big problem with such a close-minded view of religion. I hate that religion has been turned into an exclusive club where if you're not a member then you don't matter. I hate the smugness of people who already assume that they'll go to Heaven just because they decided to pick a religion that they have deluded themselves to think is the only one that matters. God is not narrow-minded.
The bible-thumpers here have already said that God has infinite wisdom. I don't think that in his infinite wisdom he'll say that a moral and humble person will go to hell just because he picked the wrong religion or he supported the wrong view of how the Universe was created. It's just plain stupid, and the one thing God is not is stupid.
-
As usual you just muddled everything with gibberish.
Akala ko ako lang ang nahilo kakabasa nun ... :D
Oh, well ... :(
-
Kawawa naman ang mga Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, atbp.
Buti pa mga Satanista kasi nag-iisa lang ang diyos nila.
yung nga ang hirap sa mga panatikong kasapi ng ibang relihiyon. pag hindi ka kapanalig, automatic sa impyerno ang punta mo. infidels o unbelievers ang bansag nila. hawak ang kanya-kanyang banal na kasulatan, pero puro bangayan at away. ano ang resulta? giyera!
sa mga kaguluhan sa mundo, karaniwan sangkot ang mga kristiano, muslim at hudyo. mga "anak" ni abraham.
nakakalungkot isipin ang ehemplo ng yugoslavia - noong rehimen ni marshall josef tito, nanatili ang peaceful coexistence pero nung namatay siya, nagkawatak-watak- serbia,bosnia, croatia, macedonia kosovo. mga dating magkapitbahay nagpatayan kasi magkaiba sila ng relihiyon.
pero mismo sa loob ng isang relihiyon ay may kasaysayan ng hidwaan. ang mga kristiano't katoliko sa europa. kaya nga nagkaron ng church of england. may mga protestante din. sunni at shiites di rin magkasundo. meron russian orthodox greek orthodox roman catholic atbp. meron din kaya born-again at born against?
-
Could somebody in the know define the LAW please?
If I understood JT correctly, he alluded to something like a universal law of a being good man, but as other members have posted, there are religious sects that consider their faith as the exclusive truth.
-
so what happens to the creationists and evolutionists after they die?
there are so many religions/churches - catholic, protestants- baptists evangelists, methodists, presbyterians, etc, christian fundamentalists(born-again), hindi born-againsts ah ;D jews, muslims, buddhists, orthodox catholics, etc. most if not all claiming they are the chosen ones that will be saved!
who will be saved? how about the infidels (as muslims call us) or the unbelievers (as born-agains call us)?
will it rain fire and brimstone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone
For some of what you mentioned ... they have a common ground (the Bible) ... of course each of them will have their own reading on that ... as for the others, investigation as to the source/basis of their belief needs to be done, also in comparison with the Bible ... and like theory of evolution/creation - their basis will stand or fall as you study each of their history of origin ...
Now ... if you are so called "Christian" ... and your basis is like the rest (the Bible) ... then it becomes your own responsibility to check on it rather than or more than just asking somebody else (who can, as people say, twist it on their own benefits) ... at least, you can not cheat yourself if you are serious in checking it out.
After doing the above ... the more significant question to ask (than your question aboce) is this ... after reading your basis for your faith, will you be saved? ... only then, perhaps, you can ask about the welfare of the rest!
-
what's important is respect for others' belief. not imposing one's own belief on the others and if they dont agree, they will be labeled as infidels or unbelievers and right there be condemned to eternal damnation- hell
-
Could somebody in the know define the LAW please?
If I understood JT correctly, he alluded to something like a universal law of a being good man, but as other members have posted, there are religious sects that consider their faith as the exclusive truth.
Sorry, the Law that I posted in the series of verses refers to The Ten Commandments handed to Moses - for some believers of the Bible, it is being used to concoct Good Works. If anybody wanted to check this out, you only need to read (before you ask) 4 chapters of the book of Galatians (1-4) how apostle Paul explained the purpose of the LAW - why it was given at the time of Moses. Apostle Paul's career is a lawyer during his time.
You can finish it one sitting. You can also compare different translations - it will help understand some of the difficult words in it. The internet can provide you all these easy to read translations. Happy reading to those who want to seek.
-
what's important is respect for others' belief. not imposing one's own belief on the others and if they dont agree, they will be labeled as infidels or unbelievers and right there be condemned to eternal damnation- hell
Well, as you can see from my post that answered your post, I have not labeled anyone ... nor impose it to others as my post is only directed to you personally ... nor I condemned anyone ... but have thrown back your question to your own self ... neither will I label you if you dont believe ... it is not in my job description as a believer ...
Now ... if you will ask me the position of the Bible about this damnation, all I can tell you is that ... whether we like it or not, from the perspective of Bible, ALL OF US are already DAMNED anyway ... Romans 3:23
-
Could somebody in the know define the LAW please?
If I understood JT correctly, he alluded to something like a universal law of a being good man, but as other members have posted, there are religious sects that consider their faith as the exclusive truth.
I think the LAW referred is the universal law of nature, the LAW on cause and effect, karma which whether one believes it or not cannot escape from its effects.
-
I think the LAW referred is the universal law of nature, the LAW on cause and effect, karma which whether one believes it or not cannot escape from its effects.
If it is from my post ... it refers to The Ten Commandments
... the first 4 is yourresponsibility to God
... the last 6 is your responsibility to your fellow man
If it is from JT ... I think he refers to your conscience ... which somehow dictate what is right or wrong regardlesss of your religion ... which animals (from where we came daw) do not have ...
-
Well, as you can see from my post that answered your post, I have not labeled anyone ... nor impose it to others as my post is only directed to you personally ... nor I condemned anyone ... but have thrown back your question to your own self ... neither will I label you if you dont believe ... it is not in my job description as a believer ...
Now ... if you will ask me the position of the Bible about this damnation, all I can tell you is that ... whether we like it or not, from the perspective of Bible, ALL OF US are already DAMNED anyway ... Romans 3:23
thats why i didnt even bother to quote your post. ;D
if all of us are damned, may i ask who will be saved?
-
What? ALL OF US ARE DAMNED? Arrrrrgggghhh!!!!
-
Who will be saved?
ME -- ;D because i believe it so and it is beyond your understanding, or else you will also be saved.
-
Who will be saved?
ME -- ;D because i believe it so and it is beyond your understanding, or else you will also be saved.
whats beyond my understanding? ::)
pakilala kita sa muttawa friend ko sa quiapo at sabihin mo sa kanya na ikaw ang masasalba, hindi siya ;D
-
thats why i didnt even bother to quote your post. ;D
if all of us are damned, may i ask who will be saved?
Before I answer your question ... I implore you to read as suggested ... the reason being is that, if the lawyers during Jesus time found it difficult to comprehend all that has transpired from the life of Abraham down to their generation with Jesus ... it will also be difficult for you without first knowing how attorney Paul presented all those events especially as regards to The Law ... and my answer to you again will be bound for unnecessary comment in this thread by those not concerned about my post to you ...
As for the respect of religion ... we can agree to disagree, that should be fine ... they will have their own time that they man encounter the same question that you are asking ... perhaps, your time to sit down is now ... because the opportunity may never come back again ... Happy reading
-
Sir Barrister thanks for the passage sa Matthew.. ;) Ya I knew it was somewhere in the New Testament
The Book of Job is a great book to read. This is Chapter 38 when Job questions God about his suffering and God answers back. ;)
Job
Chapter 38
1
1 Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said:
2
Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?
3
2 Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers!
4
Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5
Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it?
6
Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone,
7
3 While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8
And who shut within doors the sea, when it burst forth from the womb;
9
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling bands?
10
When I set limits for it and fastened the bar of its door,
11
And said: Thus far shall you come but no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stilled!
12
Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning and shown the dawn its place
13
For taking hold of the ends of the earth, till the wicked are shaken from its surface?
14
The earth is changed as is clay by the seal, and dyed as though it were a garment;
15
But from the wicked the light is withheld, and the arm of pride is shattered.
16
Have you entered into the sources of the sea, or walked about in the depths of the abyss?
17
Have the gates of death been shown to you, or have you seen the gates of darkness?
18
Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell me, if you know all:
19
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the abode of darkness,
20
That you may take them to their boundaries and set them on their homeward paths?
21
4 You know, because you were born before them, and the number of your years is great!
22
5 Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, and seen the treasury of the hail
23
Which I have reserved for times of stress, for the days of war and of battle?
24
Which way to the parting of the winds, whence the east wind spreads over the earth?
25
Who has laid out a channel for the downpour and for the thunderstorm a path
26
To bring rain to no man's land, the unpeopled wilderness;
27
To enrich the waste and desolate ground till the desert blooms with verdure?
28
Has the rain a father; or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29
Out of whose womb comes the ice, and who gives the hoarfrost its birth in the skies,
30
When the waters lie covered as though with stone that holds captive the surface of the deep?
31
6 Have you fitted a curb to the Pleiades, or loosened the bonds of Orion?
32
Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or guide the Bear with its train?
33
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens; can you put into effect their plan on the earth?
34
7 Can you raise your voice among the clouds, or veil yourself in the waters of the storm?
35
8 Can you send forth the lightnings on their way, or will they say to you, "Here we are"?
37
Who counts the clouds in his wisdom? Or who tilts the water jars of heaven
38
So that the dust of earth is fused into a mass and its clods made solid?
39
Do you hunt the prey for the lioness or appease the hunger of her cubs,
40
While they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in the thicket?
36
9 Who puts wisdom in the heart, and gives the cock its understanding?
41
Who provides nourishment for the ravens when their young ones cry out to God, and they rove abroad without food?
Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Footnotes
1 [1] Now the LORD enters the debate and addresses two discourses (Job 38-39 and Job 40-41) to Job, in which he speaks of his wisdom and power, which are altogether beyond the capacity of Job, who therefore should never dare to demand a reason for the divine actions. Out of the storm: frequently the background of the appearances of the LORD in the Old Testament; cf Psalm 18; 50; Nahum 1:3; Hebrews 3.
2 [3] Gird up your loins: prepare for combat--figuratively, be ready to defend yourself in debate.
3 [7] Sons of God: angels; cf Job 1:6.
4 [21] Divine irony.
5 [22-23] Hail . . . of war: thus God used a hailstorm to rout Joshua's foes in the battle of Gibeon; cf Joshua 10:11; Sirach 46:5.
6 [31-32] Pleiades . . . Orion . . . Bear: cf Job 9:9. Mazzaroth: It is uncertain what astronomical group is meant by this Hebrew word; perhaps a southern constellation (cf Job 9:9).
7 [34] Veil yourself . . . storm: wrap yourself in a cloud, as God comes in a theophany; cf Psalm 18:12.
8 [35] Here we are: at your service.
9 [36] Understanding: the reflection of divine Wisdom discernible in the created animal instincts of the cock.
New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCCB Home Page New American Bible Home Page
__________________________________
New American Bible
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000
December 09, 2002 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
-
whats beyond my understanding? ::)
pakilala kita sa muttawa friend ko sa quiapo at sabihin mo sa kanya na ikaw ang masasalba, hindi siya ;D
hehehe gulo yan bro ;D
-
Before I answer your question ... I implore you to read as suggested ... the reason being is that, if the lawyers during Jesus time found it difficult to comprehend all that has transpired from the life of Abraham down to their generation with Jesus ... it will also be difficult for you without first knowing how attorney Paul presented all those events especially as regards to The Law ... and my answer to you again will be bound for unnecessary comment in this thread by those not concerned about my post to you ...
As for the respect of religion ... we can agree to disagree, that should be fine ... they will have their own time that they man encounter the same question that you are asking ... perhaps, your time to sit down is now ... because the opportunity may never come back again ... Happy reading
ingat sa dobol-post baka ibang handle na naman ang lumabas ::) ;D
just for the record, i am catholic. may i ask the others here what their religion? wala lang...masama ba?
-
hehehe gulo yan bro ;D
bakit naman?
hanggang dito at doon ba, away ng mga kampon ng mga anak ni abraham? ;D
-
Kawawa naman ang mga Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, atbp.
Buti pa mga Satanista kasi nag-iisa lang ang diyos nila.
Actually, the graver truth is that Satan and his minions, the devils, recognize Jesus and God ... and they tremble even at the mention of His name ...
The evolutionists, IMHO is worse ;D ...
-
bakit naman?
hanggang dito at doon ba, away ng mga kampon ng mga anak ni abraham? ;D
korek ka jan bro ;)
Ako aaminin ko wala akong particular na religion but i have my own spiritual beliefs. :)
-
just for the record, i am catholic. may i ask the others here what their religion? wala lang...masama ba?
I started as devout catholic ... I knew my doctrines, probably more than you knew yours ... but after I studied my Bible, religion becomes irrelevant ... I define religion as man's attempt to reach out for God in his own terms and in his own self-understanding of what God is and requires.
-
I started as devout catholic ... I knew my doctrines, probably more than you knew yours ... but after I studied my Bible, religion becomes irrelevant ... I define religion as man's attempt to reach out for God in his own terms and in his own self-understanding of what God is and requires.
religion irrelevant?
yet, as per your statement, religion is "man's attempt to reach out for God in his own terms and in his own self-understanding of what God is and requires."
sounds interesting :)
-
If your beliefs are shared by others and you decide to have a group then next will be another religion... tama po ba?
-
If your beliefs are shared by others and you decide to have a group then next will be another religion... tama po ba?
siguro sadyang ganyan ang tao. maisangguni nga kay brad pete, este bro. eli ;D
bakit pa kailangan magtatag ng panibagong relihiyon o simbahan? ang dami na sa kapaligiran. katoliko, muslim, inc, born-again, protestant methodist,baptist,evangelical pentecostal,sabadista 7th day adventist, jehovah, mormons, ang dating daan, jil, elshaddai (ano ba talaga brother mike, sangay lang ba ito ng simbahang katoliko panlaban, nung kasagsagan ng born-again? )
sa isang community napansin ko may mga maliliit na sambahan, ibat-iba ang pangalan
mods. pasensya na po, mukang nalihis na ang thread. (tho i expected topics like this to eventually reach this stage) ;D
-
For me i believe that the rise of religion is brought about by just one belief and that is the belief that theirs is the chosen one.
-
I hope people realize that religion is a construct of man. A way for us to make sense of the bigger world around us and to provide a deeper purpose for our existence.
I firmly believe that God exists and that I shall be judged on how well I live my life and how well I treat my fellowman. These are the basic tenets that we will see in the great religions. It's a universal dogma. The problem arises when these great religions, most especially its rabid, fundamentalist offshoot sects, muddle everything with the insane notion that God will only favor one group over another. This is a picture of a God who is close-minded and bigoted. That's not the God I believe in.
-
Let me share this article ... hope it sheds some light regd RELIGION, JESUS and the BIBLE.
There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.
How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.
This being the case, why think theology—the study of God—should be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:
1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus lived in North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.
3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not.
The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:
1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?
But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:
1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?
First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.
Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.
Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.
The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.
This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not? The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced. Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).
For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.
Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use. Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends. All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.
The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion. That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.
Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here? The argument for God can be presented very simply:
Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one believes you can get something from nothing (i.e., that ”nothing” produced the universe), so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.
This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.
Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.
Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated. Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.
This leads to the next question: can we know God? At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true? Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.
There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.
When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God. The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.
Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims. As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right. So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true. In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise. And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted. Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.
This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately. In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny. Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God’s becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.
In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.
-
Let me share this article ...
may i know, who is the author?
-
I hope people realize that religion is a construct of man. A way for us to make sense of the bigger world around us and to provide a deeper purpose for our existence.
I firmly believe that God exists and that I shall be judged on how well I live my life and how well I treat my fellowman. These are the basic tenets that we will see in the great religions. It's a universal dogma. The problem arises when these great religions, most especially its rabid, fundamentalist offshoot sects, muddle everything with the insane notion that God will only favor one group over another. This is a picture of a God who is close-minded and bigoted. That's not the God I believe in.
Actually medyo nahihilo na nga ako sa topic na ito. pero, this post makes a lot of sense. Personally I grew up in a household that's mixed-religion (dad is a Born-again Christian, mom is Roman Catholic), but I was baptized Catholic and studied in Catholic Schools. Now I'm more of a non-dogmatic catholic but My wife and her family are Devout Catholics. Pero wala kaming nagiging problema, I just do not comment on their practices and they respect me when I don't attend the Padasals etc.
-
For me i believe that the rise of religion is brought about by just one belief and that is the belief that theirs is the chosen one.
pagsamahin mo tag-isang tao ng bawat relihiyon sa isang kwarto. hawak ng bawat isa ang kanilang banal na kasulatan. tas sa gilid ng pader, armalite, ak, galil/uzi ;D
-
may i know, who is the author?
Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias
(http://g.christianbook.com/g/slideshow/4/43272/main/43272_1_ftc_dp.jpg)
http://www.christianbook.com/jesus-among-other-gods-softcover/ravi-zacharias/9780849943270/pd/43272?event=AFF&p=1011693&
-
Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias
http://www.christianbook.com/jesus-among-other-gods-softcover/ravi-zacharias/9780849943270/pd/43272?event=AFF&p=1011693&
thanks. eto pala siya > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias
"evangelical Christian apologist and evangelist"
-
googling the Bible, Quran and Torah >
http://www.changethestory.net/?q=content/quran-bible-torah-comparison
who they are>
http://www.changethestory.net/?q=content/more-about-changethestorynet
excerpts.
Creation
Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the concept of an all-powerful creator God who fashions the universe and everything in it. The book of Genesis contains two creation stories that form the basis of both Christianity’s and Islam’s own creation narratives. In the first, God creates the universe over the course of six days and rests on the seventh day, which is consecrated as the Sabbath. The second story repeats some material in the first but is principally about God’s creation of humankind in the form of Adam and Eve, their life in the Garden of Eden, and their eventual expulsion for transgressing God’s commands. Christianity adapted the narrative from Genesis while asserting that Jesus had co-existed with God (as part of God) from the origin of the universe. The Qur'an contains many references to the creation story, describing God making the universe over the course of six time periods.
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light.” (Genesis 1: 1-3)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being … And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory.” (John 1: 1-14)
“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth; when He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: ‘Be’; and it is.” (Qur'an 2: 117)
__________
God
Judaism, Christianity and Islam have in common the notion that one God governs the world and all of creation, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and everlasting. In all three religions, God is transcendent, beyond space and time, and yet acts in history and through time. The theologies of Judaism and Islam are closer to each other than either is to Christianity; both hold God to be unified and indivisible. Most, but not all, Christians today uphold that God is a unified entity with three aspects: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) who is both divine and human, and the Holy Spirit. In Islam, God (Arabic: Allah) is the same as the God of the Jews and Christians. Just as Christians adopted Jewish narratives and teachings for their own use, Muslims have adopted narratives and teachings from both of the monotheisms that came before it.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6: 4-5)
“There is no God but one. Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth … yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 4: 4-6)
“And your God is one God; there is no god but He Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day, in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; here indeed are signs for a people that are wise.” (Qur'an 2: 163-164)
-
Let me share this article ... hope it sheds some light regd RELIGION, JESUS and the BIBLE.
There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the
What documents? 15 years after Christ’s death?
http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm
It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).
See also:
http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it
-
Akala ko ako lang ang nahilo kakabasa nun ... :D
Oh, well ... :(
We seem to be encountering a "translation" problem. :)
-
According to a priest's sermon, there are only three reasons to believe in God.You believe in God because you want to go to heaven, You believe in God because you do not want to go to hell, and you believe in God because he is God. I think religion is too much focused on the heaven and hell reward and punishment recruitment game. I look at those leaflets by religious sects and I always see the threat of Hell or the reward of heaven. Nothing of the third kind. I guess they want to recruit faster.
I have yet to encounter a religion that focus on God and doing good works, and no mention of heaven or hell. I mean one who focus on beliefs and works, and leave the judgment to God upon your death. Karamihan kasi ng religion decides they are the one. Parang kinuha na nila ang karapatan mag judge from God..Kaya minsan mas okay pa yung mga atheist/agnostics, kasi they just do good(i hope), just in case that heaven and hell thingy is true..
-
siguro sadyang ganyan ang tao. maisangguni nga kay brad pete, este bro. eli ;D
Tama, makinig na lang tayo kay Brod Pete. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OspTahz_Ix8&feature=PlayList&p=069B44FB8EB2E861&index=9
Alien!
-
Also, Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation.
-
http://forum-network.org/lecture/joss-whedon-cultural-humanist
The event is one hour and thirty minutes long. Who knew he had something to say about cultural humanism outside of staking a vampire? Oh yeah, I did. But it's nice to see him discuss it at length with a mix of people who were both fans and students.
-
Just sharing...
I'm a Catholic, I go to church every Sunday. ... I had a friend who is a Muslim told me that Jesus' birth and crucifixion was a made up. I didn't tell him that Muhamad "claimed" that he was talking to God, some point in time he forced people to join his religion or they will kill you, he practice polygamy but forbids fornication coz you can't have sex out of "many marriages"...Muhamad, Buddha and Confucius lived about hundred years BEFORE Jesus (considered Jesus as a NEW generation of Prophets by Muslims). How come there are no evidence of Jesus' Crucifixion and birth? Well except Pliny the younger's writings about 1st century Christians. Fast forward >>> After Jesus died St. Peter (including some people who knew Jesus) traveled Rome to preach Jesus' teachings. Nero was the Emperor during that time and ordered his men to prosecute Christians although he knew St. Peter personally, they killed and burned everything Christian. Some experts believed those who witnessed Crucifixion were killed in the Great Fire of Rome. So evidences and witnesses are eradicated. This somehow convinced me that Jesus is real and St. Peter as the first Pope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter#Traditions_concerning_martyrdom
-
Just sharing...
I'm a Catholic, I go to church every Sunday. ... I had a friend who is a Muslim told me that Jesus' birth and crucifixion was a made up. I didn't tell him that Muhamad "claimed" that he was talking to God, some point in time he forced people to join his religion or they will kill you, he practice polygamy but forbids fornication coz you can't have sex out of "many marriages"...Muhamad, Buddha and Confucius lived about hundred years BEFORE Jesus (considered Jesus as a NEW generation of Prophets by Muslims). How come there are no evidence of Jesus' Crucifixion and birth? Well except Pliny the younger's writings about 1st century Christians. Fast forward >>> After Jesus died St. Peter (including some people who knew Jesus) traveled Rome to preach Jesus' teachings. Nero was the Emperor during that time and ordered his men to prosecute Christians although he knew St. Peter personally, they killed and burned everything Christian. Some experts believed those who witnessed Crucifixion were killed in the Great Fire of Rome. So evidences and witnesses are eradicated. This somehow convinced me that Jesus is real and St. Peter as the first Pope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter#Traditions_concerning_martyrdom
muslims consider Jesus/Isa a prophet.
ever heard of the Crusades? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
-
... I had a friend who is a Muslim told me that Jesus' birth and crucifixion was a made up.
Does he mean that Jesus never existed? If so, then he's not a very knowledgable Muslim.
Muslims believe that Jesus existed. However, they do not believe that he was crucified or that he is God incarnate.
In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى `Īsā) is considered a messenger of God who had been sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel). The Qur'an states that Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles, all by the permission of God. According to Islamic texts, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather he was raised alive up to heaven.
Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God (shirk), emphasizing the notion of God's divine oneness (tawhīd). Jesus is seen in Islam as a precursor to Muhammad, and is believed by Muslims to have foretold the latter's coming.
How come there are no evidence of Jesus' Crucifixion and birth? Well except Pliny the younger's writings about 1st century Christians.
There are a few historical references about his crucifixion, but they are very few:
From Jewish sources:
- Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.
- The Amoa "Ulla" (Ulla was a disciple of Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century) adds: "And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth - Jesus) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: "Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him." It is otherwise with Yeshu, for He was near to the civil authority.
From Roman sources:
- Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate.
- Lucian of Samosata: (Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine
Jesus is famous today, but remember that during his time, he was actually a nobody. In fact, the whole Jewish race were a bunch of nobodies in the Roman Empire.
On the contrary, if you find a lot of historical records about Jesus today, the authenticity of those records would be highly suspicious.
-
@ sir barrister
Thank You for elaborating...
But all these non-biblical sources were/are challenged by critics/non-believers, others believed it was altered. Even though there are lack of evidences, we know that some people (Nero and Poncius Pilate) who are connected with Jesus was recorded in historical accounts. Yup there are many Yesua, Mary and Joseph during that time but there was only one, who died and responsible for bringing Christianity in Rome.
It's really hard to convince Skeptics.
Those religions whose founders claimed they had talked to God and gave them guidance or whatsoever...It's a total NO NO they don't even have powers to perform miracles. All they do/did is/was to predict the end of the world...LoL
Evolution? Huh? It all happened in the first 7 days which maybe equivalent to millions of years for a typical human. All the Dinosaurs died because they couldn't fit on Noah's Ark...lol just kidding.
-
Don't know where to post this, guess okay na dito. :)
My daughter asked me earlier about the TV AD she saw at ABS-CBN...
"Dad, who is "Bro" they are talking about?"
I replied..."Jesus Christ"
then she gave me a blank face and said...."to call GOD OUR CREATOR just by this name "Bro"?
Just told her not to immitate it especially since she is in a catholic school. Isn't this a case of blasphemy?
-
Hindi mo lang siguro na-gets kung ano yung "Bro" sa ABS CBN.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/May_Bukas_Pa.jpg)
In the ABS CBN TV show "May Bukas Pa", the orphan boy Santino found a dirty statue of Jesus Christ with wounds on the hands and feet. The statue came to life and became Santino's friend and confidant, whom Santino affectionately called "Bro". Afterwards, Bro bestowed upon Santino the power to miraculously heal the sick.
That is why ABS CBN says "Bro, Ikaw ang Star ng Pasko". It's actually another attempt to further promote one of their popular programs.
Biblically, there is basis for calling Jesus our brother. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. But Christians are also considered sons of God by adoption. Therefore, Christians and Jesus are brothers by adoption.
In Romans, Jesus is called the firstborn among many brothers:
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29, NIV)
In Hebrews, Jesus and Christians are of the same family and are therefore considered brothers:
"Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises." ... (Hebrews 2:11-12, NIV)
However, Jesus' being a "brother" to Christians is not the whole story because that's only one minor aspect. Jesus is also the Head of the Church, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords.
-
Kasi kung titignan mo yung palabas si Kristo ang lalaking kausap nya. Kung hindi man alam ni Santino kung sino ba talaga ang kausap nya, ang mga ibang tao or bata iisipin si kristo yun. Naiintidihan ko rin ang posted verses mo, "Jesus and Christians are of the same family and are therefore considered brothers" pero hindi yata magandang tularan at marinig ng kabataan na tawagin si Kristo ng Bro base sa nakikita sa palabas nila.
-
Totoo rin yon, kasi ang kadalasang gamit ng "bro", yung pang-barkada lang e. Parang may pagka-presko ang dating ... :(
-
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/ChiggaXanzabar/BuddyChrist.png)
-
as in the 60s - "the times, they are a changing" (robert zimmerman) & time for a cool change (little river band) ;D
-
To those who know the story behind the term bro used by santino in that telenovela, I think there is no problem. ;)
-
To those who know the story behind the term bro used by santino in that telenovela, I think there is no problem. ;)
baka puro kapamilya yun, paano mga kapuso? ;D ::)
-
aHobbit have the most accurate information and knowledge about what is "TRUE SALVATION".
Truth:
1. not all can be saved from hell only few, in fact, "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
2. salvation cannot be obtained (through our own effort)... it is FREE. - i added "through our own effort" kasi kung unobtainable ang salvation then everybody is going to hell that contadict no.1.
3. no need to do good things (or to be righteous) to go to heaven.
4. righteousness is just fruit of salvation.
5. being righteous doesnt mean that you are not going to hell.
-
FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
;D ;D ;D
-
aHobbit have the most accurate information and knowledge about what is "TRUE SALVATION".
Truth:
1. not all can be saved from hell only few, in fact, "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
2. salvation cannot be obtained... it is FREE.
3. no need to do good things (or to be righteous) to go to heaven.
4. righteousness is just fruit of salvation.
5. being righteous doesnt mean that you are not going to hell.
Just read this. Can you explain item number 3, please? What should a person do to go to heaven?
-
3. no need to do good things (or to be righteous) to go to heaven.
Don't you think it's a tad more admirable that a person still does good things and is a good person despite the fact he doesn't believe in heaven or hell? I mean, who is better? Someone who believes in God but does good things only because he fears punishment (hell) and desires reward (heaven) or someone who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people period.
If you believe that the second person goes to hell and first one goes to heaven, then you believe in a petty, vain God. I don't believe in that God.
-
... Can you explain item number 3, please? ...
please read no. 2. Salvation cannot be obtained... it is FREE.
siguro magtatanong kayo... and nabasa ko na rin sa ibang post... na ok lang maging masama and yet pupunta pa rin sa langit...
please read no. 4. Righteousness is just a "FRUIT" of salvation.
meaning a manifestation of true salvation or true faith. knowing no. 2 and no. 3 is not a license or justification of doing evil/unrighteousness.
[/i]... What should a person do to go to heaven?
that is not the right question sir. the right question must be:
What should a person must have to go to heaven?
Don't you think it's a tad more admirable that a person still does good things and is a good person despite the fact he doesn't believe in heaven or hell? I mean, who is better? Someone who believes in God but does good things only because he fears punishment (hell) and desires reward (heaven) or someone who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people period.
If you believe that the second person goes to hell and first one goes to heaven, then you believe in a petty, vain God. I don't believe in that God.
sir, i am afraid that those two persons you mentioned.... both will go to hell.
-
^ no person knows who is or isn't going to hell. God alone decides. that is, if you guys believe in God.
-
^ no person knows who is or isn't going to hell. God alone decides.
Amen.
-
who is better? Someone who believes in God but does good things only because he fears punishment (hell) and desires reward (heaven) or someone who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people period.
If you believe that the second person goes to hell and first one goes to heaven, then you believe in a petty, vain God. I don't believe in that God.
based on your example
1. A person who believes in God but does good things only because he fears hell and desires heaven
2. A person who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people.
Question:
1. Who is better:?: Person no. 1 of course. but in reference to who is going to heaven... there is no such word "better person" or "righteous person"
2. Who is going to hell or heaven?: both, based on your question
Person No. 1: I assumed that this person is going to hell because of my statement No. 2 (Salvation is free) and No. 3 (no need to do righteousness in order to go to heaven) and you specifically state that this person 'does good things only because he/she desires heaven' (take note: my statement no. 4)
Person No. 2: I assumed that this person is going to hell on the ground that he/she really dont believed in God kahit gaano man siya kabuti sa mata ng tao.
well if your question is like this:
Who is going to heaven:
A person who believe in God and does good things or a person who says he/she believe in God but not doing any good at all?
That, i cannot answer and i can also say that "no person know who is or isn't going to hell or heaven".
Only you/me can say if we are really going to heaven.
-
^ no person knows who is or isn't going to hell. God alone decides. that is, if you guys believe in God.
You are wrong ... and then you are right!
If the Bible is encrypted, it is only encrypted to those who do not believe!
Of course, God alone decides, and it is well documented in the Bible.
But one can know!
In fact, one can also know if he is going to hell using the same Bible.
That is, if you believe the Bible to be authentic (unless you are not any of the variants of Christian religion).
(1) One of the robbers crucified together with Jesus had been assured before His crucifixion death "today, you will be with me in paradise" (either you dont believe the words, or Jesus is lying or the Bible is just a fiction book).
(2) When Jesus told His disciples He is leaving, his disciples got worried. But He told them "in my father's house are many mansion ... so that you will be where I am" (unless Jesus meant He is going to hell)
(3) In John 10, Jesus said "I know my sheep, and my sheep know me" (unless Jesus do not know what He is talking about)
(4) In the last days of Jesus temporary mortal life He told His disciples - it is the real Lord's prayer (not the our Father thingie - which is in fact the Disciple's Prayer) as recorded in John 17. "Every person the Father gave Jesus, Jesus will gather, and secure - and to make it even harder to be lost, they will be sealed by the Holy Spirit".
(5) In Romans 8 (specifically 38-39), Paul told the believers in Rome "If God is for us, who can be against us? death, famine, persecution, ... In all these things we are more than conquerors"
(6) In the OT, in the life of King David, when his son via Bathsheba (a big sin in the life of David) died, he was comforted and said "I will go to him later". FYI, David is a man after God's own heart - from where the line of messiah came from. (Could David meant hell?)
Can go longer here if some wanted more ...
-
Don't you think it's a tad more admirable that a person still does good things and is a good person despite the fact he doesn't believe in heaven or hell? I mean, who is better? Someone who believes in God but does good things only because he fears punishment (hell) and desires reward (heaven) or someone who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people period.
If you believe that the second person goes to hell and first one goes to heaven, then you believe in a petty, vain God. I don't believe in that God.
The first thing you have to understand is your own condition before a HOLY GOD!
- that from the time of your birth, you have the curse inherent in a mortal body caused by Adam & Eve
- that your very action and thought is typically adverse to God's HOLINESS
- that you in your state, has no capability to save yourself from the very state that you are in
This is the same as the cry of Paul "oh wretched man that I am, who can deliver me from the body of this death?"
Paul is a top notch lawyer of God's commandment - a true Jewish defender of Judaistic laws - probably followed to the letter the requirements of the mosaic traditions.
My note: when you come into realization who God is - in His HOLINESS - you will recognize that the good things/deeds that man can claim to himself is as described in ISAIAH - FILTHY RAGS (a used feminine napkin). Go, picture yourself offering a used feminine napkin to a HOLY GOD! That's the BETTER you are talking about!
Of course, we live in civil and relative goodness, to live and co-exist in peace - but such is not a measure of God's acceptance!
GOD do not need people who are good and has no need of salvation! This is the reason why the Scribes and Pharisees was taken aback by Jesus declaration "The prostitutes and robbers and criminals have gone ahead of them in paradise!"
Why? because they knew they sinned and need salvation that they themselves can not provide for their own. King David slept with another man's wife (Bathsheba), then have the man, his top general killed in battle, and David have a son by the girl (who later died) as a punishment for him.
-
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
-
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
This is a good read ... and quite presented in a readable manner!
Amusing is the establishment of "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang" ;D
So Science validates the Bible, and the Bible supports Science ... and mere theories will not pass the validation of both Bible & Science!
Thanks for the link :) ... though sometime sounds high falluting (to me at first), the reading is really an interesting one. Indeed, bolstering creation, combined with the findings of Institute of Creation Science.
-
"Creation Science" = That's an oxymoron.
-
"Creation Science" = That's an oxymoron.
Sa 'yo! ;D
All accumulated findings and gathered knowledge in science points to the credibility of the biblical account of creation! Biblical accounts support science, while science validates biblical accounts! 8)
If there is an oxymoron term - from the very beginning, it has been the Evolution "Science". To date, we can almost relegate evolutionism as a moronic belief! :P ;D ;D
the very foundation by which this theory was formulated already crumbled down in the light of more discoveries and discussions among phycists! Even atheist physicists can not ignore that the endpoint of their research points back to the intelligent creator not bound by time!
and it is just a matter of time that evolution will be an obsolete theory in the same level as that of the "flat earth"!
Of course, nobody is stopping anybody to believe in it!
-
I, for one, would like to read actual, non-fiction scientific findings supporting the existence of Adam and Eve and incontrovertible proof of a 10,000 year old universe. I would also like to see actual scientific findings debunking a heliocentric system.
-
Ahobbit, with all due respect, may I know what church you belong in? Just curious.
-
All accumulated findings and gathered knowledge in science points to the credibility of the biblical account of creation! Biblical accounts support science, while science validates biblical accounts! 8)
The posted link above gives the age of the universe as 30 billion years (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds). Luma na nga yata yan kasi new estimates only put the age between 13-14 billion years. Regardless, does that mean you no longer subscribe to Young Earth Creationism?
-
I have a better equation too:
atheist* = fool
* these are those who deny the existence of God or those who claimed that there is no God.
our mere existence in this world is a simple evidence that there is GOD. and to deny that simple fact is simply foolishness.
kahit nga ang mga ninuno natin (even without the proper knowledge of Bible or religion), they acknowledge that there is mighty being in charge of nature.
BUT... i think in my own opinion, there is another form of foolishness:
- those who claimed that there is God and yet God is not evident in their way of life.
- those who go to church every Sunday and live his/her life from Monday to Saturday full of sins and of no repentance.
-
BUT... i think in my own opinion, there is another form of foolishness:
- those who claimed that there is God and yet God is not evident in their way of life.
- those who go to church every Sunday and live his/her life from Monday to Saturday full of sins and of no repentance.
Yup, but that's really more hypocrisy than foolishness.
-
Ahobbit, with all due respect, may I know what church you belong in? Just curious.
+1
-
This is a good read ... and quite presented in a readable manner!
Amusing is the establishment of "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang" ;D
So Science validates the Bible, and the Bible supports Science ... and mere theories will not pass the validation of both Bible & Science!
Thanks for the link :) ... though sometime sounds high falluting (to me at first), the reading is really an interesting one. Indeed, bolstering creation, combined with the findings of Institute of Creation Science.
The article reminded me of the saying in Pilipino: "gaano man kalayo ang procession, sa simbahan did ang bagsak."
There's also this anecdote about a man in search of the truth, leaving his home elders after not getting satisfactory answers, roaming the world only to end up finding the truth back home. ;D
-
Me, I like this quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
-
I doubt if he told that to his Maker when he finally met Him.
-
I don't see what that has to do with the quote. He was referring to advances in science that were considered blasphemous before time and more open minds made them acceptable. Like for example Galileo.
-
I know what he meant. I was just commenting in zest directly on the quote outside of its relevance to anything.
-
All these readings make me want to re-watch that fascinating (fictional) movie called The Man From Earth. ;)
-
Don't you think it's a tad more admirable that a person still does good things and is a good person despite the fact he doesn't believe in heaven or hell? I mean, who is better? Someone who believes in God but does good things only because he fears punishment (hell) and desires reward (heaven) or someone who does not believe in God but still does good things because he wants to be good and he wants to be good to people period.
If you believe that the second person goes to hell and first one goes to heaven, then you believe in a petty, vain God. I don't believe in that God.
this is the wrong philosophical approach to the whole heaven and hell thing
a lot of people claim that we do good to be rewarded, and when evil is done we are punished. but liken the fires of hell to the fire of a candle. you tell your child not to play with the candle or else he will get burned. is getting burned by the flame of the candle a threat or punishment? no, its a consequence of playing with fire.
good and evil are not two separate things where you can do each one independently. they are opposite sides of the spectrum. its either your work is evil or good, there is no neutral state. its like light vs. dark. and if you choose dark, you suffer the consequence of being in the dark
you do good because if you don't do good, you're doing evil. and a consequence of evil is hell. its as simple as that. we are given the knowledge that by doing good we go to heaven because that is what we need for our soul to live forever. its not a bribe. when you don't play with the candle, you get to enjoy its light safely.
-
Good and Evil.. No shades of gray?Here is a scenario. You have a terrorist wherein either you torture him to locate the bomb, or no torture, but thousands get killed in the process. What is the good or evil thing to do?
-
Good and Evil.. No shades of gray?Here is a scenario. You have a terrorist wherein either you torture him to locate the bomb, or no torture, but thousands get killed in the process. What is the good or evil thing to do?
You watch 24 too much!
LOL. Most terrorism experts will tell you that such a scenario very, very, very seldom happens.
-
in the eyes of God, we are all equal : "we are all sinners".
there is none righteous, no not one.
even good works cannot please God.
-
in the eyes of God, we are all equal : "we are all sinners".
there is none righteous, no not one.
even good works cannot please God.
In your view of heaven and God, dpogs, I have to say that there are probably more interesting and fun people in Hell than there are in Heaven since a lot of the people I admire (writers, directors, artists of all shapes and forms) are all humungous sinners: They're atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, drunks, drug addicts, womanizers, etc. I'd much rather hang out with William Shakespeare, George Carlin, Freddie Mercury, Luis Bunuel, etc. than say, Cardinal Sin or Jerry Falwell.
-
In your view of heaven and God, dpogs, I have to say that there are probably more interesting and fun people in Hell than there are in Heaven since a lot of the people I admire (writers, directors, artists of all shapes and forms) are all humungous sinners: They're atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, drunks, drug addicts, womanizers, etc. I'd much rather hang out with William Shakespeare, George Carlin, Freddie Mercury, Luis Bunuel, etc. than say, Cardinal Sin or Jerry Falwell.
hmmm... maybe or maybe not.
but i tell you... self righteous (in the eyes of men) seems hard to find forgiveness that those who are "homongous" sinners.
-
In your view of heaven and God, dpogs, I have to say that there are probably more interesting and fun people in Hell than there are in Heaven since a lot of the people I admire (writers, directors, artists of all shapes and forms) are all humungous sinners: They're atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, drunks, drug addicts, womanizers, etc. I'd much rather hang out with William Shakespeare, George Carlin, Freddie Mercury, Luis Bunuel, etc. than say, Cardinal Sin or Jerry Falwell.
LOL, as if erudition and great earthly works are an excuse to slight the hand that created you. None of them will matter to a God that created billions of stars in the universe. Funny thing thing is, they don't even matter to Satan. Because all he wants to see are souls of God's creation burning in the pits of eternal damnation like him.
-
in the eyes of God, we are all equal : "we are all sinners".
there is none righteous, no not one.
even good works cannot please God.
whats your basis on making the statement?
there are lots of basis where God have found and chosen righteous people (Noah, Abraham, Mary, etc.)
-
In your view of heaven and God, dpogs, I have to say that there are probably more interesting and fun people in Hell than there are in Heaven since a lot of the people I admire (writers, directors, artists of all shapes and forms) are all humungous sinners: They're atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, drunks, drug addicts, womanizers, etc. I'd much rather hang out with William Shakespeare, George Carlin, Freddie Mercury, Luis Bunuel, etc. than say, Cardinal Sin or Jerry Falwell.
problem is, heaven or hell is not a hanging out place. its not Glorietta or Megamall or MOA
from the descriptions of hell in religious revelations, i don't think you'll have a chance of "hanging out" with anyone should you and that other person be in hell
-
whats your basis on making the statement?
there are lots of basis where God have found and chosen righteous people (Noah, Abraham, Mary, etc.)
there is a difference between righteous (in the eyes of men) than righteous before God.
my answer to what is a true Christian (sent you a personal message).
-
there is a difference between righteous (in the eyes of men) than righteous before God.
my answer to what is a true Christian (sent you a personal message).
you said there is none righteous. but God Himself has found those i mentioned as righteous, and many more
if God did not find Noah righteous, he would have perished in the flood as well and humanity would have ended
if God did not find Abraham righteous, He would not have made a covenant with him
if God did not find Mary righteous, she would not have bore His Son
so they are found righteous by God, not by man
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html)
-
Devoid of any religious exposure, the natural man has a differentiating instinct for what is good and bad. Because even animals have some rudimentary instinct for it. They protect their families and their siblings, and help each other out in a society because man is by nature a social animal who must live in herds, which is inherently good. And they know the anquish and pain of being violated, raped and deprived or losing a loved one from murder, so they know what is bad. The golden rule has been well-known independent of any religion. In fact, tribes who have never had any religious exposure, are known to have codified a normative set of rules defining what is good and bad and assumed religious dimensions and comes with punishment when violated. Ancient civilizations flourished because of these sets of rules that became both secular law and religion.
But that is not the same as actively denying Divine revelation that Moses, Abraham and Jesus Christ left behind. The knowledge of God as revealed by Christ cannot be denied. People who are just but have not heard of Christ or are withheld the knowledge of God may be forgiven and their good works acknowledged. But when the knowledge of Christ is made known to you, whether in school or elsewhere and you now repudiate it and deny it, preferring instead to be an atheist or agnostic, that's another matter. Because then, you become guilty of the sin of Apostasy. Even if you do good works, they cannot erase the sin. Because all good works made in the name of God glorify Him. Good works made outside of HIM glorify only man. And all good works made in thoughtful denial of God amount to nothing for your eternal salvation. Denying God when you already learned about HIM is a violation of the First Commandment because you are now turning your back on Him. And violating the First Commandment makes upholding the rest worthless in His eyes no matter what you do.
-
paano naman ang ibang relihiyon?
feb2010 world population 6.8billion+
from>
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html
*christianity (catholics 1.1B/ protestants 382M/ independents 433M orthodox anglicansetc..)
*islam (sunni & shiites ~1.4B)
*hinduism (~876M)
*judaism (~15M)
*buddhism (386M
*chinese universists(~386M)
etc
sino kaya ang pupunta sa heaven?
__
di ba sa middle east nag-umpisa ang christianity, islam at judaism? tatlong relihiyong nag-ugat kay abraham. tatlong relihyong nag-aaway at laging may giyera/ patayan.
samantalang ang mga buddhists taoists shinto hindus atbp na base sa asia ay tahimik na nananampalataya sa mga relihiyon at Diyos nila.
bakit kaya ganyan ang ibang mga relihiyon? pag kaiba ka, di ka na go sa heaven! ::)
noong panahon ng "crusade" pinapatay ng mga kristiano ang kalaban sa ngalan ng relihiyon. ganun din ang mga islamic fundamentalist fanatics sa mga "infidels"...
-
How about other religion or belief...
Dito na pumapasok ang : Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
-
Naging christian convention ata itong thread na ito. ::)
Ignorance of a world outside of christianity/religion is no excuse for unfair prejudice and discrimination.
-
There is an atheist group in UP. Though I am not one of them, I really enjoyed listening to them and enjoying the thought that maybe the inherent goodness of man is enough to make this world a peaceful place for everyone.
-
and everything else is unnecessary.
-
But when the knowledge of Christ is made known to you, whether in school or elsewhere and you now repudiate it and deny it, preferring instead to be an atheist or agnostic, that's another matter. Because then, you become guilty of the sin of Apostasy. Even if you do good works, they cannot erase the sin. Because all good works made in the name of God glorify Him. Good works made outside of HIM glorify only man. And all good works made in thoughtful denial of God amount to nothing for your eternal salvation. Denying God when you already learned about HIM is a violation of the First Commandment because you are now turning your back on Him. And violating the First Commandment makes upholding the rest worthless in His eyes no matter what you do.
I think ojof00l's question is a fair one.
Reminds me of this joke:
A man goes to Heaven and is welcomed in by Saint Peter, who gives him the standard tour. When they come to a part of Heaven that seems to be walled off from the rest, Peter turns to the new arrival and whispers, "We have to be very quiet around this wall, because of the people on the other side."
"Who's on the other side?"
"The [insert name of religious group here]."
"Why do we have to be quiet?"
"They think they're the only ones here."
-
Maybe.
But you'll never know until you get there.
If God doesn't care about religions, then that's just fine. You do what you think is right and you lose nothing.
But what if He does? What if He revealed the true religion in Christ?
Are you willing to gamble your eternal soul on a mere joke?
-
paano naman ang ibang relihiyon?
feb2010 world population 6.8billion+
from>
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html
*christianity (catholics 1.1B/ protestants 382M/ independents 433M orthodox anglicansetc..)
*islam (sunni & shiites ~1.4M)
*hinduism (~876M)
*judaism (~15M)
*buddhism (386M
*chinese universists(~386M)
etc
sino kaya ang pupunta sa heaven?
__
di ba sa middle east nag-umpisa ang christianity, islam at judaism? tatlong relihiyong nag-ugat kay abraham. tatlong relihyong nag-aaway at laging may giyera/ patayan.
samantalang ang mga buddhists taoists shinto hindus atbp na base sa asia ay tahimik na nananampalataya sa mga relihiyon at Diyos nila.
bakit kaya ganyan ang ibang mga relihiyon? pag kaiba ka, di ka na go sa heaven! ::)
noong panahon ng "crusade" pinapatay ng mga kristiano ang kalaban sa ngalan ng relihiyon. ganun din ang mga islamic fundamentalist fanatics sa mga "infidels"...
indeed... Satan is very successful to draw away our attention to what we called a very simple plan of salvation to mankind.
instilling in our mind that religion only matters...
making our own religion better than the others...
diverting our mind to false science...
making us believe that there is no God...
making us believe that we are gods...
conditioned us to believe that in order to go to heaven we must do good works...
conditioned us to believe that what Jesus Christ did on the cross of calvary is not enough for salvation...
confusing us what the real meaning of "Christianity"...
telling your mind that this post is absurd, idiotic, out of this world, and nonsense...
ang mundo na ito ay punong puno ng mga edukadong tao, matatalino, marurunong sa larangan ng Bibliya... we have our own interpretation of The Bible, we are so wise enough to neglect that salvation is indeed very simple to obtain...
"we are professing to be wise, we become fools".
-
If God doesn't care about religions, then that's just fine. You do what you think is right and you lose nothing.
But what if He does? What if He revealed the true religion in Christ?
The non-believers will be judged according to their conscience.
The Bible mentions condemnation for non-believers, but those non-believers are the kind who heard and understood the Gospel, yet knowingly and willfully rejected it.
This principle is explained in the story of Jesus healing a blind man, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees not for the sole reason that they had no faith, but because they have heard Jesus' message, which they they knew in their hearts to be true, yet they still rejected Christ:
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. (John 9:39-41, NIV)
Notice that Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin". So, the secular principle of "ignorance of the law excuses no one" does not apply to Christianity.
Similarly, St. Paul explains that those who do not have God's law can still have a chance for salvation, because they will be judged not according to the law, but according to their conscience:
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. 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. (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, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2:12-16, NIV)
Kaya hindi ako naniniwala sa sinasabi ng ibang relihiyon na pag hindi ka raw nila miyembro, sigurado na raw na sa impiyerno ka pupunta.
-
Kaya hindi ako naniniwala sa sinasabi ng ibang relihiyon na pag hindi ka raw nila miyembro, sigurado na raw na sa impiyerno ka pupunta.
amen! yan lagi ang panakot nila ;D >:(
-
The non-believers will be judged according to their conscience.
The Bible mentions condemnation for non-believers, but those non-believers are the kind who heard and understood the Gospel, yet knowingly and willfully rejected it.
This principle is explained in the story of Jesus healing a blind man, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees not because they had no faith, but because they have heard Jesus' message, which they they knew in their hearts to be true, yet they still rejected Christ:
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. (John 9: 39-41, NIV)
Notice that Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin". So, the secular priciple of "ignorance of the law excuses no one" does not apply to Christianity.
Similarly, St. Paul explains that those who do not have God's law can still have a chance for salvation, because they will be judged not according to the law, but according to their conscience:
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. 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. (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, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2:12-16, NIV)
Exactly, if you are "blind" and have not heard of Christ, your conscience can be your salvation. But if you've been exposed to Christ yet turn your back on him, that's when you sin.
-
There is an atheist group in UP. Though I am not one of them, I really enjoyed listening to them and enjoying the thought that maybe the inherent goodness of man is enough to make this world a peaceful place for everyone.
and everything else is unnecessary.
I could agree with you. The only problem is, you are not living for this world only.
-
I could agree with you. The only problem is, you are not living for this world only.
Paano kung para sa mga atheist ay walang diyos, walang satanas, walang impyerno, at walang langit?
Paano mo ipaliliwanag sa kanila?
-
Kaya hindi ako naniniwala sa sinasabi ng ibang relihiyon na pag hindi ka raw nila miyembro, sigurado na raw na sa impiyerno ka pupunta.
and these religions are the following (based on their teachings):
1. Iglesia ni Kristo (no. 4 teachings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Beliefs_of_the_Iglesia_ni_Cristo
2. Roman Catholics (believe it or not - its on their teachings - the first sacrament)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
no harsh comment... if you think i am being bias and you belong sa dalawang namention ko... please convince me na mali lang ang pagkakabasa ko.
-
Paano kung para sa mga atheist ay walang diyos, walang satanas, walang impyerno, at walang langit?
Paano mo ipaliliwanag sa kanila?
creation is enough for us to be aware that there is God...
"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 i admit... it is very difficult for the atheist to believe this...
why....
1. http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=97531.msg1127936#msg1127936
2. http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=97531.msg1136451#msg1136451
-
Paano kung para sa mga atheist ay walang diyos, walang satanas, walang impyerno, at walang langit?
Paano mo ipaliliwanag sa kanila?
There are two kinds of atheists. One who hasn't heard or are ignorant about life after death and I can try to explain from the Catholic perspective. The other kind is one who was reared as a Christian and later on junked these beliefs. To these people, no explanation is necessary. The only thing I'll tell to them is this"
If there is no God and no Satan, no heaven and no hell, and you didn't believe, that's just great, you can indulge in whatever you want while living on earth. But if there is and you died denying HIM, then you're screwed for all eternity.
Put simply, what have you got to lose? If there's no God and you believed in one, you lose nothing, or maybe just the chance to crap your neighbor's wife... But if there's a God and you did crap your neighbor's wife without repenting, you lose your soul. Wanna gamble on that?
-
and these religions are the following (based on their teachings):
1. Iglesia ni Kristo (no. 4 teachings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Beliefs_of_the_Iglesia_ni_Cristo
2. Roman Catholics (believe it or not - its on their teachings - the first sacrament)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
no harsh comment... if you think i am being bias and you belong sa dalawang namention ko... please convince me na mali lang ang pagkakabasa ko.
No harsh comment ... promise ... ;)
AFAIK, you're right. The maxim "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is an official Roman Catholic doctrine.
However, Catholic doctrine teaches that the expression is a mere short-cut, the full doctrine being that conscience is also considered an exception. Thus, Catholic Catechism states:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation." (Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church 847, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM) ; from Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
The belief that "outside the INC there is no salvation" is also an official INC doctrine. I don't know what exceptions they consider.
As for Protestantism, they also have the doctrine of "Solus Christus" ("Christ alone"), or "Solo Christo" ("by Christ alone"), as one of the "five solas" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas . According to Martin Luther, "For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation".
-
There are two kinds of atheists. One who hasn't heard or are ignorant about life after death and I can try to explain from the Catholic perspective. The other kind is one who was reared as a Christian and later on junked these beliefs. To these people, no explanation is necessary. The only thing I'll tell to them is this"
If there is no God and no Satan, no heaven and no hell, and you didn't believe, that's just great, you can indulge in whatever you want while living on earth. But if there is and you died denying HIM, then you're screwed for all eternity.
Put simply, what have you got to lose? If there's no God, you lose nothing. But if there's a God and you died, you lose your soul. Wanna gamble on that?
wow... great explanation...
Argument:
THERE IS NO GOD
- all atheist and believers will go to nothing after death (believers/atheist struggles here in earth: very short moment)
THERE IS GOD
- all believers will go to heaven and atheist will be damned (atheist suffering in hell: eternity)
hmmmm.... kung saan natin titingnan dehado ang mga atheist.
-
Unfair naman yata yon.
Christianity is not that simple. You don't attain salvation just because you want to play it safe and profess Christianity.
Compare that with the atheist who honestly and sincerely belived there is no God, yet tried his best to live his life according to his conscience.
Baka nga yung atheist pa ang maligtas ... :D
-
Unfair naman yata yon.
unfair talaga...
in a scenario between two people
1. atheist : living without hurting others and as much as possible a very good person
2. believer : living without hurting others and as much as possible a very good person
dehado talaga ang atheist... this is just a logical explanation for them to understand the "What if there is really a God?"
but.... salvation is free for all... and everyone of us have a chance of going to heaven.
basically there is no such word "unfair" in terms of salvation.
-
The problem is more complex than that. Like I said, if you already knew about God and his teaching and you turn your back on that, then you fall for the sin of Apostasy.
If you honestly have not heard of Him and live a just and compassionate life, I don't see any problem.
-
If you honestly have not heard of Him and live a just and compassionate life, I don't see any problem.
and i dont think that these so called atheist never heard of the gospel in this age of information.
the moment they called themselves atheist is a mere fact that they were aware that God exist, they just dont believe it.
God revealed Himself in His creation, even our ancestors were aware of His existence.
Kaya ko nga nasabi na there is no really excuse after all.
-
and i dont think that these so called atheist never heard of the gospel in this age of information.
Most likely. Those who honestly haven't heard of HIM probably won't even know the word Atheist or Agnostic.
It's really difficult not to know about Him in this age of information. Those who profess to be Atheists and Agnostics were most likely born and educated as Christians and thought it better to deny Him. Agnostism is more common as it's just professing you don't know and live by a self-imposed ignorance.
But Atheism is entirely in a lower plane. It is active repudiation of the divinely revealed truths and a constant rebellion against God that consciously denies even the existence of sin. This is severe apostasy that is a direct affront to the Holy Ghost, exhibiting arrogant contempt, mocking defiance and blasphemous celebration of what it is to be Godless and causing others to fall likewise. By taking your choice on a path declaring your active opposition to God as an Atheist, you are committing the sin of unpardonable apostasy for which there can be no forgiveness on earth or in heaven.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32)
-
I think we need to differentiate the two:
Agnostic- somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Atheist- unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
-
wow... great explanation...
Wow, Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager).
-
I think we need to differentiate the two:
Agnostic- somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Atheist- unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
There are different severity levels in each.
Agnosticsm as practiced by Thomas Huxley is a philsophical acceptance that you simply don't know nor can anyone claim knowledge of God's existence because it cannot be proven scientifically and therefore cannot be part of any body of knowledge. But there is generally no OBJECTION to the concept of God In short, you neither affirm nor deny it. And you don't claim any knowledge. Which is a false kind of self-deprecating ignorance. because there is such a thing a divine or divinely inspired knowledge which agnostics in their boastful pride to accept only the products of human intellection, prefer to disregard.
There are also agnostics who are open to believe in a God but don't follow any form of religious conviction and because they profess not to know, they won't bother with any kind of religion. At the other end, there's a more severe form called agnostic atheism which is actually atheism but without active objection because they are not sure and don't claim knowledge that there is no God. They don't believe in God but prefer to keep an open mind to proving He exists. The concept of faith generally does not exist in agnostics.
The atheism I am referring to is the worst kind as they avow the certainty that there's no God and seek active destruction of the authority and iconic presence of God on earth. They are in active pernicious objection that challenges the belief in God in open court. It is now common in the US like suing public schools for prayers in the classroom, or questioning a statement like "In God We Trust" or tearing down the 10 commandments in the halls of justice. These Atheists are already actively clamoring for a Godless society and attempting to subvert a God-fearing nation and the articles of faith embodied in their national motto :"In God We Trust.".
-
I guess the problem I have with this kind of God is that He discriminates against a person simply because of the accident of his/her birth. Because what percentage of people actually change religions from the one they were born in/brought up in? I don't have figures but I would imagine very few. God will punish us basically for being born in another religion? Which, statistically, will happen 7 times out of 10.
I mean, if you happened to be born Muslim, do you honestly think you'll convert to Christianity when you got older and heard the Good News?
-
These Atheists are already actively clamoring for a Godless society and attempting to subvert a God-fearing nation and the articles of faith embodied in their constitution.
No, they're not. They're advocating the separation of Church and State, something we need to have more in the Philippines, quite frankly. The U.S. Constitution guarantees FREEDOM OF RELIGION which also means you are also free to be an atheist or an agnostic or whatever belief you subscribe to. They're guaranteeing that the government cannot and will not impose a set of religious beliefs in the country.
-
No, they're not. They're advocating the separation of Church and State, something we need to have more in the Philippines, quite frankly. The U.S. Constitution guarantees FREEDOM OF RELIGION which also means you are also free to be an atheist or an agnostic or whatever belief you subscribe to. They're guaranteeing that the government cannot and will not impose a set of religious beliefs in the country.
They are not advocating a separation of church and state.. The separation of Church and State has been there since the time of Thomas Jefferson in the First Amendment. They are advocating a godless state. You said it yourself, as atheists they are exercising their belief. They are free to exercise that and no one is prosecuting them. But by imposing their own godless belief they are asking the state to follow their godless religion. It is therefore not a church and state issue. But I am not surprised that people are deceived by their false reasoning. The power behind them is the Great Deceiver.
-
Great Deceiver = Satan
I will stand by on these arguments:
What if there -is- no god?
ANSWER: If the one and only true God did not exist, nothing else whatsoever would exist. That which is created cannot exist apart from its Creator.
What if there -is- a god?
ANSWER: The proof of God's existence is overwhelming. Therefore one cannot make the supposition that the Almighty God exists in the midst of overwhelming evidence of His existence. That is like saying "What if I am reading these words" while actually reading them. A supposition of the existence of God cannot be rightly made in the midst of knowledge of His existence
-
Copied:
Sometimes it is appropriate to refer to atheists as "descendants of the apes." I'm sure all of them are highly honored by that title since they are the ones who claim that apes are their noble ancestors.
This explains why atheists have devised the animalistic and heathenistic philosophy of atheism. It is because that is the best philosophy the ape's descendants can come up with. That is as high as they can rise in their thinking. There has never been an ape during the history of apes that achieved the ability to perceive the existence of God and to worship Him. And so, it is not surprising that descendants of the apes are void of that ability as well.
This also explains the awful heathen and abominable fruit descendants of apes produce in the society - why they are so lawless. It must have been a terrible group of apes they descended from, because when you observe apes that exist today, all of them do exactly what apes are suppose to do. But atheists cannot do anything right. Apes today are more civilized than atheists.
True Christians have a far more noble fountain from whence they descended. We were originally created by the Almighty God - created in His image. We did not have to evolve to a higher state, but from the beginning, were created by God as perfect as humans can be. Even though we fell from our created state of perfection in the first man Adam, our Maker brings us back by His uplifting grace. But atheists, as descendants of the apes, have never and will never reached the level of perfection in which God originally created all mankind.
If atheists were human, and weren't descendants of the apes, they might be able to perceive the beauty of the existence of God, and might have a chance at receiving God's grace. But alas, animals don't have that ability and God has no intention on saving animals.
-
there is such a thing a divine or divinely inspired knowledge which agnostics in their boastful pride to accept only the products of human intellection, prefer to disregard.
My problem with this is that there are so many people claiming "divinely inspired knowledge" that it's hard to make sense out of all of it. The Greeks claim it came through the Oracle. The Jews, through Abraham, Moses. Christians through Christ, Catholics add the Pope, Muslims added Muhammad. At least the Taoists tell you to rely upon your own spiritual sense that your Divine Spark may, eventually, reunite with the Tao.
They are advocating a religious state. You said it yourself, as Christians they are exercising their belief. They are free to exercise that and no one is prosecuting them. But by imposing their own religious beliefs they are asking the state to follow their religion.
Works both ways.
-
the question is
when and where atheism originate?
SINO ang principal author of atheism?
-
wow. religion na pala ang atheism. ::)
ignorance ba or blinded by faith?. tsk tsk tsk
"you fear what you choose not to understand"
-
Works both ways.
Exactly. But between them, I prefer a religious advocating a religion than atheists advocating Godlessness
-
the question is
when and where atheism originate?
SINO ang principal author of atheism?
The question is: Did God create Man did Man create God?
-
Exactly. But between them, I prefer a religious advocating a religion atheists than advocating Godlessness
Sure, if it's your religion.
What if it was a Muslim, advocating an Islamic state, forbidding, say, alcohol consumption? You bet the rest of this alcohol-producing and alcohol-chugging country would be up in arms.
But when it comes to, say, the reproductive health bill getting killed, we're all quiet little lambs.
-
But when it comes to, say, the reproductive health bill getting killed, we're all quiet little lambs.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The government needs to tell the Catholic Church to STFU and just preach the evils of birth control from the pulpits and not through bullying politicians.
What do you mean when you say "Godless State"? These atheists are not advocating prohibiting religions and religiousness. Just keep religion OUT of the government. The problem of course with Filipinos is that a lot of us here think that one can't morality without religion. That's just not true.
-
The question is: Did God create Man did Man create God?
Puwede ko sagutin yan
"Did God create Man?" : YES
"Did Man create God?" : NO
Back to my questions (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=97531.msg1142275#msg1142275) : what are the answers?
-
Puwede ko sagutin yan
"Did God create Man?" : YES
"Did Man create God?" : NO
How do you know that?
-
How do you know that?
That is not an answers to my questions (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=97531.msg1142275#msg1142275)?
-
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The government needs to tell the Catholic Church to STFU and just preach the evils of birth control from the pulpits and not through bullying politicians.
What do you mean when you say "Godless State"? These atheists are not advocating prohibiting religions and religiousness. Just keep religion OUT of the government. The problem of course with Filipinos is that a lot of us here think that one can't morality without religion. That's just not true.
That's why I challenge all these anti-RH advocates to adopt families with at least three children each and let them live in their homes, eat their food and pay for each child's schooling until college. And not just one family, mind you, they should adopt at least three families.
See, the problem with RH is that the people who talk so much about how morally right it is are not directly affected by the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. They are not the ones who do not have the capacity to earn the needed money to feed hungry children who live in the streets and are not getting the kind of care that they should be getting. All they talk about is how if you pray God will provide. You can pray all you want but prayer alone will not bring food to the table. Same goes for the priests who do not even know the responsibility of being parents -- who after a day of advocating RH go back to their hot meals that are actually the products of donations to the church.
And I call BS on anyone who posts here that these people are not just praying enough that's why they're poor and are having a hard existence.
-
That is not an answers to my questions (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=97531.msg1142275#msg1142275)?
Seriously, dude, how do you know God created Man, and not vice-versa. Oh right, the Bible, right?
Here's an answer to your question, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-
Same goes for the priests who do not even know the responsibility of being parents -- who after a day of advocating RH go back to their hot meals that are actually the products of donations to the church.
kaya nga dapat ang isang priest may isang asawa. "a bishop must be ... a husband of one wife..."
paano niya pangungunahan ang isang Church if he himself dont know how to rule a family.
"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"
i support RH Bill but i will definitely not support any form of abortion.
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
hmmmm... no wonder... these atheist have a mind or think like a new born child.
or I can claim also that "all children are born with an idea of God."
Who knows!!! we can ask the new born child if he/she really knows that there is no God or if there is God.
Cmmon... is there where the idea of atheism came from... from a newborn child???
-
or I can claim also that "all children are born with an idea of God."
Who knows!!!
Exactly. So we're back to square one: my claims vs. your claims.
-
this are the definition of an atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
one who believes that there is no deity
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
im puzzled... sa state of mind ng isang newborn child... does these definition of atheist applies???
-
These are the 'definitions' of a Theist (Theism):
- Belief in at least one deity
- Refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe
- Conceives of a God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe
I'm excited! It's awesome to see 2 or 3 year olds, even newborns, knowing such big words.
-
so... can we now rule out that a new born child neither an atheist or theist???
-
"Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas."
It's called implicit atheism, which refers to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".
The point is that—prior to any exposure to religion, and barring some kind of epiphany or spiritual revelation, a person is atheist.
Early humans, if you believe there were any before 6000 years ago, almost surely practiced animism, ancestor worship, or shamanism, but Theism and organized religion were unknown to them. Of course, if all humans literally descended from Adam and Eve then there's no debate.
What bothers me is so many people professing to be Theist (believing in God), with no real personal reflection, study, or spiritual awakening. They just take what their 1st-grade Religion teacher taught them as 'truth' and stick with it.
-
Early humans almost surely practiced animism, ancestor worship, or shamanism, but Theism and organized religion were unknown to them. Of course, if all humans literally descended from Adam and Eve then there's no debate.
organized religion were unknown to them of course... but they felt the presence of God and they knew it. Thats why they practiced those kind of worship but in corruptible manner... it was in the Bible.
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.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator
"Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas."
does the definition of an atheist or atheism evolving???
for what i know, atheist themselves argued for what really atheist means...
regarding the mind state of a new born child or his/her capability of belief... how do you know that a newborn child have no knowledge of God?
if a newborn child have no knowledge of God at all does it mean that God does not exist? kung walang alam ang newborn child about parents does it mean na wala siyang mga magulang? if a newborn child has no knowledge of moons and stars does it mean that there are no moons and stars?
Saan ba talaga nakatayo ang mga atheist? sa paniniwala na since ang bata ay isinilang na walang knowledge of God ay puwede na nilang sabihin na walang Diyos?
Creation itself shows that God exist. But can anyone show me a proof that there is no God????
Prove the non-existence of God sa kahit anong paraan? Is there any intelligently, specifically and truthfully proof the God does not exist?
Thinking that God does not exist is not a proof for the non-existence of God.
-
There's a big world of difference between conscious atheism and natural atheism. We've already been through that before when we acknowledged tribal societies who have honestly not heard about religions and work mainly on the natural instinctive goodness in them which the Church also recognizes. They are no different from infants who have not heard of these things as well.
But once you've heard about it, there's really no excuse to deny Him. It gets worst when you've been raised in a religion and then abandon it because you think He's a silly God. I think that's the kind of atheism that's pernicious, to his soul and others he influences.
-
organized religion were unknown to them of course... but they felt the presence of God and they knew it. Thats why they practiced those kind of worship but in corruptible manner... it was in the Bible.
Christians are misled, and some are evil. It's in the Qur'an, so it must be true.
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
for what i know, atheist themselves argued for what really atheist means...
From what I know, Christians themselves have argued (since the after apostles) and are still arguing about what Christianity really means; e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ only became canonical with the Nicean Council, a full 300 years after Christ; Christians today still debate over conditional vs unconditional election, limited vs unlimited atonement, etc.
regarding the mind state of a new born child or his/her capability of belief... how do you know that a newborn child have no knowledge of God?
if a newborn child have no knowledge of God at all does it mean that God does not exist? kung walang alam ang newborn child about parents does it mean na wala siyang mga magulang? if a newborn child has no knowledge of moons and stars does it mean that there are no moons and stars?
Regarding the state of mind of a newborn child, how do you know that a child has no knowledge of unicorns?
If a child has knowledge of unicorns, does that mean that unicorns exist?
Saan ba talaga nakatayo ang mga atheist? sa paniniwala na since ang bata ay isinilang na walang knowledge of God ay puwede na nilang sabihin na walang Diyos?
Saan ba talaga nakatayo ang mga Kristiyano? Sa paniniwala na dahil ang bata ay natatakot sa multo na ibig sabihin ay may multo?
Creation itself shows that God exist.
Geology, minerology show that the Earth is round and it's older than 6,000 years. Evolution shows that humans likely evolved from basic life forms into progressively more complex and intelligent species.
Prove the non-existence of God sa kahit anong paraan? Is there any intelligently, specifically and truthfully proof the God does not exist?
You can't 'prove' a negative. The burden of proof is with those that posit the positive. You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
Thinking that God does not exist is not a proof for the non-existence of God.
Believing that God exists is not proof for the existence of God.
-
But once you've heard about it, there's really no excuse to deny Him. It gets worst when you've been raised in a religion and then abandon it because you think He's a silly God.
And once you've read about how other cultures and religions worship Him, it becomes evident that many of their/your beliefs and practices are scarcely more than superstition or pagan traditions turned into dogma.
-
And once you've read about how other cultures and religions worship Him, it becomes evident that many of your beliefs and practices are scarcely more than superstition or pagan traditions turned into dogma.
And that's infinitely a lot better than turning your back on God. Because you'd be living a lie. Actually, even your religion could be lie. But between the two, hands own, a religion even as a lie which you won't know anyway, provides meaning, hope and a promise to an existence that goes beyond materiality. But a life without God is a worst lie, because it means everything you do while living will just end in dust.
Now if my religion was a lie, I don't see how I'd be poorer for it. But if it were true, ...
-
And that's infinitely a lot better than turning your back on God. Because you'd be living a lie.
You speak of apostasy, which I think should be distinguished from atheism.
Actually, even your religion could be lie. But between the two, hands own, a religion even as a lie provides meaning, a hope and a promise to an existence that goes beyond materiality.
Can't really argue with that. You can't argue with belief, and to me if beliefs, even if mistaken, lend toward a general good then you can't really fault that.
But a life without God is a worst lie, because it means everything you do while living will just end in dust.
A couple of things. First, if you're really an atheist then it's not a lie—again, as opposed to believing/having believed in God but turning your back upon those beliefs.
To be fair, I also think a lot of so-called atheists don't really know why they don't believe in God, or haven't really thought about it deeply.
Second, atheism and belief in an afterlife are not mutually exclusive. It might not be the traditional heaven/hell—it could be reincarnation (Buddhism), or some other metaphysical afterlife.
Finally, Theism and belief in an afterlife don't always come hand in hand. The Sadducees were an ancient Jewish sect that generally believed that there was a God but no afterlife.
-
And once you've read about how other cultures and religions worship Him, it becomes evident that many of their/your beliefs and practices are scarcely more than superstition or pagan traditions turned into dogma.
therefore... satan is successfull for diverting the truth.
You can't 'prove' a negative. The burden of proof is with those that posit the positive. You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
Believing that God exists is not proof for the existence of God.
You are right when you say that you cannot prove the non existent of God, because no such proof exists since He does indeed exist
COPIED
NO PROOF BEYOND THE EVIDENCE
There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every true Christian to present proof.
Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God’s creation, the type challenge atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and an impossible task for the Christian.
Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence that they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.
This deceptive principle has been exemplified time-after-time in courts of law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the evidence that prove the person’s guilt is presented in court by the prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly prove the person’s guilt.
However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers, while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the prosecutor to prove their client is guilty.
What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the minds of the jurors and shift focus from the overwhelming evidence to challenging the prosecutor to prove their client’s guilt to the jurors beyond the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.
Evidence of God's existence is so overwhelming that it far, far exceeds any of the evidence any true Christian can present in a debate. Since the greater evidence is denied, there's no convincing by the lesser.
What is this overwhelming evidence? God has supplied all mankind with atleast two great witnesses of His existence. It is the existence of the vast HEAVENS and all therein and the EARTH and all hereon. These two contain more evidence than can ever be fully known and understood by man.
COPIED
THE FINGERPRINTS OF GOD
All of God's creation has the fingerprints of God all over it. These fingerprints witness to the fact that God CREATED or brought into being from nothing the heavens and the earth and all therein.
An atheist sent me email challenging me to prove this fact. Here is my response to him:
"The fingerprints of God are clearly seen in many ways: One is the fact that no creature has the ability to CREATE. Man can take what has already been created and change it or make a mixture of something with what has already been created; but man as well as every other creature and thing is totally void of the ability to actually BRING INTO BEING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING."
I challenge any atheist, agnostic, freethinker or unbeliever to show a single simple example of anything any man, creature or thing has brought into existence from nothing.
The only One who has and who can do that is the ALMIGHTY GOD
what i ask is where atheism originated and when?
and yet what i got is "atheism came from a new born child".
-
You are right when you say that you cannot prove the non existent of God, because no such proof exists since He does indeed exist
Your logic amazes me.
By the same token, you cannot prove the non-existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, because no such proof exists since the Flying Spaghetti Monster does indeed exist.
You can't disprove the Big Bang either, because no such proof exists since the Big Bang indeed happened.
You can't disprove abiogenesis because no such proof exists because abiogenesis indeed happened—you only need to look around you at the abundance of life and that's enough proof for abiogenesis.
-
thee religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). three BOOKS (Torah, Bible, Quran). All believing in GOD. All claiming to be the TRUE religion/ path.
i believe only the christians (catholics, protestants, born-agains) are represented here in this site. any jews or muslims around?
oh btw, bakit kaya ang BIBLIA iba-iba ang versions?
accdg. to http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/ >>> A quick comparison of Bible versions shows that they are really not the same. Some leave out entire verses, others disagree on whether Jesus should be called God's servant or God's Son. But how do you decide which is completely correct?
bakit kaya ang Torah at Quran, hindi iba-iba versions? ::)
pati ba sa biblia, di magkasundo ang mga kristiano? (katoliko, protestante atbp) tsktsktsk
anong nangyari sa 3 relihiyon na yan? puro away giyera kasi di magkasundo eh iisa ang pinanggalingan nila - si ABRAHAM.pagsamahin mo tatlong relihiyoso sa isang kwarto- rabi evangelist at muttawa - may hawak na torah, quran at biblia at may tatlong baril sa lamesa, at pagdebatehin. di malayo na sa huli magbarilan
3 relihiyon lang yan, di pa kasali ang scientology nila tom cruise, buddhism, hinduism atbp.
-
@dpogs and av_phile1 - will catholics be saved? is the catholic God the same as the christian God? ::) ;D
oh btw as ive previously posted, im catholic. how about the both of you? ( i assume you are christians. mind posting here, just exactly what type of christian? ie..protestant baptist born-agains? etc) tnxalot.
* indieboi and me, asked ahobbit what his religion was. seems he "disappeared"
-
what i ask is where atheism originated and when?
You keep asking that question, fishing for an answer. Why don't you give us your answer, then?
and yet what i got is "atheism came from a new born child".
Um, would you kindly point out who said that, sir? I'm reading through the recent posts on this thread, including my own. I don't see anyone saying "atheism came from a new born child". Maybe I just have trouble with reading comprehension?
-
@dpogs and av_phile1 - will catholics be saved? is the catholic God the same as the christian God? ::) ;D
oh btw as ive previously posted, im catholic. how about the both of you? ( i assume you are christians. mind posting here, just exactly what type of christian? ie..protestant baptist etc) tnxalot.
* indieboi and me, asked ahobbit what his religion was. seems he "disappeared"
I was born and raised under the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But I am not so comfortable with Vatican Catholicity under the Vatican II changes which I consider tainted with politics and the devil . I am more inclined to Orthodox Catholicism.
-
I was born and raised under the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But I am not so comfortable with Vatican Catholicity under the Vatican II changes which I consider tainted with politics and the devil . I am more inclined to Orthodox Catholicism.
thanks. me too. im not a practicing catholic. i disagree with some issues like population/birth control. in short di ako "sarado katoliko"
ive read abit about liberation theology. seems ok to me.
-
oh btw, bakit kaya ang BIBLIA iba-iba ang versions?
accdg. to http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/ >>> A quick comparison of Bible versions shows that they are really not the same. Some leave out entire verses, others disagree on whether Jesus should be called God's servant or God's Son. But how do you decide which is completely correct?
Because they were men and women who chose to defy the deeply seethed corruption in the Catholic church during the darkest age of the 1400s.
IMO Christianity (the strictest sense encompassing the sub sects) is the most "open" or "progressive" religion in the world that adjusts to modern times but still uphold their base evident truths and beliefs. (speaking of the big three religions you mentioned of course) You try to defy these other religions to change and you'll end up with your head missing.
You can see the double standards in society today. Christianity is often mocked, criticized, parodied and most just turn the other cheek while you have to thread on a minefield when talking about Islam or Judaism. (Albeit Judaism on a far lesser extent)
-
Because they were men and women who chose to defy the deeply seethed corruption in the Catholic church during the darkest age of the 1400s.
IMO Christianity (the strictest sense encompassing the sub sects) is the most "open" or "progressive" religion in the world that adjusts to modern times but still uphold their base evident truths and beliefs. (speaking of the big three religions you mentioned of course) You try to defy these other religions to change and you'll end up with your head missing.
You can see the double standards in society today. Christianity is often mocked, criticized, parodied and most just turn the other cheek while you have to thread on a minefield when talking about Islam or Judaism. (Albeit Judaism on a far lesser extent)
so what is the "REAL" HOLY BIBLE? which is the correct/authentic version? and why?
try to debate religion in saudi with a saudi ;D ...as long as you dont proselytize, you just might get away with it. me? i just say "inshallah"/God's will -when asked if im a muslim or not. ;D
-
You keep asking that question, fishing for an answer. Why don't you give us your answer, then?
please back read... that questions were already answered... i just want to know if those so called atheist know their origin.
Um, would you kindly point out who said that, sir? I'm reading through the recent posts on this thread, including my own. I don't see anyone saying "atheism came from a new born child". Maybe I just have trouble with reading comprehension?
Here's an answer to your question, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
you only need to look around you at the abundance of life and that's enough proof for abiogenesis.
we also need to look around us at the abundance of life and the life what we have now, all the blessings, all those things that sustained us to live ... all those things are enough proof that there is God.
Your own existence is positive proof of the existence of God because He is the fountain and sustainer of all life.
by the way... before geology/minereology discovers that the earth is round, it is already stated in the Bible
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
before our great astronomer discovers that the earth suspended in the space the bible already told us what to believe
Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
and what really interesting...
COPIED
In 1800 B.C. we were told that light travels (Job 38:19), the stars produce sound waves (Job 38:7), some stars are "bound" in clusters (Job 38:31), the moon has no light of it's own (Job 25:5), and electricity can be used for communication (Job 38:35).
As early as 1500 B.C. it was recorded that the sun is not the only source of light (Gen. 1:3, 14-16; Psa. 74:16), the earth was originally one large land mass (Gen. 1:9; 10:25; Deut. 32:8), and the stars cannot be counted by man (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; Jer. 33:22).
If we cannot believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because we've allowed someone to educate us out of our faith in God's word. we have been tricked into forsaking the Bible by placing our faith in a man-made religion called "Evolution."
Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion." Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH. Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.
All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, "". . .Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.
Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
These are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God.
-
so what is the "REAL" HOLY BIBLE? which is the correct/authentic version? and why?
I cannot say for i have no authority in that, but that was in response to your question on "why the Koran and the Torah" have only one version.
As for the "real" Holy Bible, what does it matter when the personal teachings of Jesus remain self-evident and largely unchanged throughout all versions? "Do unto others what you want others to do unto you." Words to live by.
-
I cannot say for i have no authority in that, but that was in response to your question on "why the Koran and the Torah" have only one version.
As for the "real" Holy Bible, what does it matter when the personal teachings of Jesus remain self-evident and largely unchanged throughout all versions? "Do unto others what you want others to do unto you." Words to live by.
why does the Torah and Quran have just one version? di ba mas ok na "puro" ang aklat nila? eh ang biblia kanya-kanyang edition/version, binago-bago ng tao. paano malaman ng "layman" na tama o mali ang isang version. ayan tuloy, pinagdedebatehan pa.
-
I might offend someone if do choose to express my opinion. (SEE: double standards)
Read up on their histories, standards. As a fully independent free "raised as catholic" person, i'm sure you'll be able to form an opinion quite close to mine. Inshallah indeed! ;D
-
I might offend someone if do choose to express my opinion. (SEE: double standards)
Read up on their histories, standards. As a fully independent free "raised as catholic" person, i'm sure you'll be able to form an opinion quite close to mine. Inshallah indeed! ;D
Alhamdullilah! thanks God, praise the Lord Hallelujah !
Shalom, Peace be upon you, Assalaamalaikum ;D
-
ayan tuloy, pinagdedebatehan pa.
Isn't that the beauty (and dangers) of free will? The choice to change, to accept, to progress...even to reject and deny? :)
IMHO this world is getting too crowded, humanity should unite under one banner and reach for the stars.
-
Isn't that the beauty (and dangers) of free will? The willingness to change, to accept, to progress...even to reject and deny? :)
IMHO this world is getting too crowded, we should reach for the stars.
kaya lang, bakit pa ba babaguhin ang orig? ngayon sa dami ng versions/editions, paano malaman alin ang pinakamalapit sa "orig"? ::)
pwedeng sabihin nung iba na nahaluan na ang isang version/edition ng biblia ng kamalian na dulot ni satanas. eh kung yun pala ang binabasa ng kausap mo, sure bangayan,debate at di pagkakaunawaan ang mangyari...
-
I am more inclined to Orthodox Catholicism.
So you follow the same hardline catholicism stance that Mel Gibson's father practices? Just curious.
-
I prefer and I should have called it Pre-Vatican II Catholicsm.
-
we also need to look around us at the abundance of life and the life what we have now, all the blessings, all those things that sustained us to live ... all those things are enough proof that there is God.
No, it's not. There's certainly enough evidence for solar system and planetary formation, and for evolution. There's enough oral and even written history to establish anthropology of religion. There's lots of other things that establish a provable chain of causality where the existence or occurrence of A implies the existence/occurrence of B.
But to make the leap from being (ontology) to "God exists", well, for me still requires a leap of faith.
Honestly, sir, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who has trouble with reading comprehension, much less rational thinking. It's either that, or you're deliberately misinterpreting words to suit your thinking.
Let's take the quote "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
Does that make any claims about the origin of atheism?
All it says, and allow me to repeat myself, is that in the absence of religious experience or exposure, then people will have little to no idea about God or organized religion or worship. People will form belief systems of their own, that's inevitable—hence animism and paganism, then eventually, polytheism, then the monotheism of Abrahamic and other contemporary religions.
At least av_phile1 acknowledges what the Church says about tribal societies. The Church itself recognizes the problem of people, esp. in pre-history, living without knowledge of the Christian God; in other words, or implicit or natural atheism.
As for the rest of your copied and pasted post, I will concede that to a certain extent, science itself is a belief structure.
But to imply because the Bible says the Earth must only be 6,000+ years old therefore all of scientific knowledge about cosmology, earth sciences, and evolution are false is, well, hard to acknowledge. Do you, sir, also believe that Jesus rode on dinosaurs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/414998399/)?
-
Question:
Is there a catholic school that will require students to read and tackle the bible from cover to cover?
FWIR, the bible was only taught by verses.
Again, wondering why our Bible has several versions? Was it a product of hearsays and belief of different people during those days? Reason for the numerous alterations?
If we have several sects nowadays and several places for worships which they were able to build, why can't they have their own school? Like school exclusively for Muslims, Jehova.INC etc. It's kinda ironic to have a different sect joining catholic students when they do not practice Catholicism.
-
Question:
Is there a catholic school that will require students to read and tackle the bible from cover to cover?
FWIR, the bible was only taught by verses.
Again, wondering why our Bible has several versions? Was it a product of hearsays and belief of different people during those days? Reason for the numerous alterations?
If we have several sects nowadays and several places for worships which they were able to build, why can't they have their own school? Like school exclusively for Muslims, Jehova.INC etc. It's kinda ironic to have a different sect joining catholic students when they do not practice Catholicism.
in Islam, they have madrassa's. sa saudi maliit/musmos pa lang tinuturuan na magbasa ng Quran.
imagine two christians discussing religion eh magkaiba pala sila ng bible na binabasa... dun pa lang kung anong biblia ang tama, bangayan na.
-
Question:
Is there a catholic school that will require students to read and tackle the bible from cover to cover?
FWIR, the bible was only taught by verses.
I am not aware of any Catholic school that tackles the Bible cover to cover, Even the parish school my son attended here in multinational did not even tackle the Cathechism which I recall I had as a kid when the Parrish school I attended was still ran by Belgiian missionaries. This is actually my complaint about modern catholic schools. The Catholic Church in this country seems to have gone complacently ignorant about the effects of those TV evangelical shows like Ang Dating Daan or INC fulfilling this role and giving some wrong interpretations of the Bible than doing it themselves in their own schools.
-
I wonder if atheists can discern good from evil.
If you opt to follow the right path, why do you do it?
What laws inhibit your evil side from taking over?
-
kaya lang, bakit pa ba babaguhin ang orig? ngayon sa dami ng versions/editions, paano malaman alin ang pinakamalapit sa "orig"? ::)
pwedeng sabihin nung iba na nahaluan na ang isang version/edition ng biblia ng kamalian na dulot ni satanas. eh kung yun pala ang binabasa ng kausap mo, sure bangayan,debate at di pagkakaunawaan ang mangyari...
These are questions and arguments that seek to further divide and shake the faith, but let us not forget the distilled essence of the teachings and verses on how one should treat his fellow men and live his life is well, basically untouched.
These arguments on the revisions and versions should be irrelevant for a true believer because if you take it too seriously, you're only arguing for argument's sake. These philosophers/theologians are more concerned about semantics and literature than faith and salvation itself. Can you give me one BIG example that the whole Christian sect is arguing on whether it should be included, revised or excluded? If they are, they are only widely debated on theological groups which deem it necessary to their jobs.
The only more "serious" revision and are subject to much more common debate that i can recall is of the verse was "saved by faith alone" added by Luther wherein the book of James chimes in to balance it by "faith without works, or works without faith... are dead". Well, common sense, no?
In the end, religion isn't faith. Hence, the popular quote "I don't believe in religion, I believe in God"
-
Question:
Again, wondering why our Bible has several versions? Was it a product of hearsays and belief of different people during those days? Reason for the numerous alterations?
AFAIK the various versions of the Holy Bible are mainly due to variances resulting from inter-language translations and the translation approach used, whether verbatimly which is literal, or using the contextual idioms of the language at the time they were written.
The initial problem is the Hebrew text which is the world's poorest language as far as nouns are concerned but it is also the most abbreviated language that can express meanings in different ways depending on the idiomatic expression or contextual meanings. Then you have to translate the later Greek portions of the Bible and the Latin parts. So now you have the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Lutheran and King James and the Douay versions . And then over the years, you have English translations that go back to the older manuscripts to translate directly from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to modern English while others prefer to translate the Latin Vulgate directly to Modern English or from the old English of the King James to more modern English. And like I mentioned earlier, some translations are literal or verbatim from one language to another, while some are contextual or idiomatic. So now you have many versions. And I'm not even talking about versions created precisely to exclude certain books because they were not canonical based on their beliefs.
There's a lot more to it, of course, including the credentials of translators or the politics behind as most translations have to go through an approval process like a nihil obstat and imprimatur, etc..
If we have several sects nowadays and several places for worships which they were able to build, why can't they have their own school? Like school exclusively for Muslims, Jehova.INC etc. It's kinda ironic to have a different sect joining catholic students when they do not practice Catholicism.
I know there are INC schools, they even have a college, I think. Others I'm not aware of but I guess that's more economics than anything, When you only have 100 Jehovahs in your town, it may not sound like good business to have a dedicated school for Jehovahs. Muslims, I'm not aware either.
-
Honestly, sir, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who has trouble with reading comprehension, much less rational thinking. It's either that, or you're deliberately misinterpreting words to suit your thinking.
Let's take the quote "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
Does that make any claims about the origin of atheism?
Honestly, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who has trouble with answering a very simple question. or they just indirectly answer the question to suit their thinking.
Question: When and where atheism originate?
Answer: "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
the question is simple and the answer is somehow different??? i think an apropriate answer is time (era) and place.... hmmm maybe atheist really dont know where and when ahteism originate???
The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon.
hmmmm... maybe any atheist will be proud to say that their philosophy originate from the monkeys. ??? ???
But to imply because the Bible says the Earth must only be 6,000+ years old therefore all of scientific knowledge about cosmology, earth sciences, and evolution are false is, well, hard to acknowledge. Do you, sir, also believe that Jesus rode on dinosaurs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/414998399/)?
scientific knowledge or a "leap of faith"
NOT ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
The average evolutionist would have us believe that all TRUE scientists accept Darwin's theory as fact. Sir John Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, wrote the following in 1959:
"The point to make about Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun." (Tax, Sol, Ed. "Evolution After Darwin," Issues in Evolution, Chicago University Press, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 41.)
See how the system works? A scientist cannot be recognized as a SERIOUS scientist unless he REJECTS THE BIBLE and RECEIVES EVOLUTION. Well, there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution. For example, Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, "The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."
Professor L.T. More, of the University of Chicago, says, "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, everyone of his arguments is contradicted by fact."
Professor A.C. Steward, from the Cambridge University, says, "A student who takes an impartial retrospect soon discovers that the fossil record raises more problems than it solves."
Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, "The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning."
So the Bible believer must understand that he is not alone in his stand against Darwin's foolish theory. There have always been a few scientists around who were honest and open-minded enough to consider all the facts and take an unpopular stand for the TRUTH, rather than IGNORE the facts and take a POPULAR stand for evolution. We should thank God for them.
HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVEN?
Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.
VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.
Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.
Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.
Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.
EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.
Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."
Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.
This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.
Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more
nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!
The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.
Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)
Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).
The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.
Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.
In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.
Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?
Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.
The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.
Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.
Now this is the kind of "evidence" which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as "scientific fact." This is what the Bible labels as "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20).
-
ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:
"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)
So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.
-
If we have several sects nowadays and several places for worships which they were able to build, why can't they have their own school? Like school exclusively for Muslims, Jehova.INC etc. It's kinda ironic to have a different sect joining catholic students when they do not practice Catholicism.
I still believe that education should be non-secular and I say that as a believer. Mixing religion and education is volatile chemistry, impeding the growth of a child's cognitive and conceptualization functions and only blurs his faith.
-
Again, wondering why our Bible has several versions? Was it a product of hearsays and belief of different people during those days? Reason for the numerous alterations?
indeed, satan is successful for diverting/alternate the truth.
-
naisip ko lang ang salitang "atheist".
even a word "atheist" cannot exist without the word "theist"
a + theist = atheist
atheist minus(-) theist = a
-
Question: When and where atheism originate?
i think an apropriate answer is time (era) and place.... hmmm maybe atheist really dont know where and when ahteism originate???
I hate repeating myself, so this is the last time I'll even acknowledge that question. Read up on anthropology of religion. If you think atheism was born with the French revolution, then you're only thinking about the term itself—not the general idea of non-belief in gods or a God.
Animism and ancestor worship, both implicit forms of atheism (or forms of non-theism, if you want to be pedantic) are the earliest spiritual belief systems and predate any formal religion. Even early Christianity venerated the dead, which led to veneration of saints and their relics.
Do you know where and how your religion originated? Do you know how various scripture and other books eventually formed the canonical Bible? Are you aware of any Gnostic traditions or Hellenistic philosophies that found their way into Christian theology?
Or maybe these were never discussed in Sunday school, so they must be the works of Satan, right?
The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon.
Would you claim there's a single author, and time of origin, of the Bible? Even just the authorship and origin of the Gospel of John is debated.
hmmmm... maybe any atheist will be proud to say that their philosophy originate from the monkeys. ??? ???
Your attempts at ad hominem are humorous, for someone who believes that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
It's late and I'm too tired to even begin to address the rest of your creationist copy and paste.
Here's some reading for those capable of critical thinking for themselves: look up "ring species" and how they relate to speciation and micro-evolution.
-
Animism and ancestor worship, both implicit forms of atheism (or forms of non-theism, if you want to be pedantic) are the earliest spiritual belief systems and predate any formal religion.
this was already explained by The Bible
"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."
how will the atheist explain that our ancestors (deprived of the Bible, without knowledge of religion) decided to worship an "unknown god"?
our ancestors were aware that there is a supreme being, much more powerful than nature.
Just as God gives infants the natural instinct to suckle the breast without them having to be taught to do so, He also establishes in every human the instinctive knowledge of His existence and the ability to clearly discern it through the light of nature.
-
I wonder if atheists can discern good from evil. If you opt to follow the right path, why do you do it?
What laws inhibit your evil side from taking over?
Atheists do good because they simply want to do good. They don't need an old man in the sky who's gonna send them to hell for masturbating in order to scare them into doing good work.
Or maybe these were never discussed in Sunday school, so they must be the works of Satan, right?
That reminds me of Kathy Bates' character in The Waterboy ("BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS THE DEVIL!!!!!").
Here's one of my favorite standup comedian, Patton Oswalt's (you may know him as the voice of Remy the Rat in Ratatouille very funny explanation about the origin of religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFrWe1zk4g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFrWe1zk4g)
-
I prefer and I should have called it Pre-Vatican II Catholicsm.
Traditional Catholicism as what some people refer to it
-
Question:
Is there a catholic school that will require students to read and tackle the bible from cover to cover?
FWIR, the bible was only taught by verses.
Again, wondering why our Bible has several versions? Was it a product of hearsays and belief of different people during those days? Reason for the numerous alterations?
If we have several sects nowadays and several places for worships which they were able to build, why can't they have their own school? Like school exclusively for Muslims, Jehova.INC etc. It's kinda ironic to have a different sect joining catholic students when they do not practice Catholicism.
probably not. Catholicism is not based solely on the Bible but also on Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church as well, both of which came before the Bible
the different versions of the bible come about because of the different interpretations of the text. remember that language evolves very quickly. a lot of the words that people use in the 70s and 80s aren't even used today (bagets, jeprox, etc.) so in the interest of keeping the text modern and understandable to the current generation, there are continous efforts to keep the text modern.
there are many private religious schools around the world that cater to people of a particular faith. in the Philippines, don't forget that the INC has New Era. and there are many Protestant private schools as well
-
Atheists do good because they simply want to do good. They don't need an old man in the sky who's gonna send them to hell for masturbating in order to scare them into doing good work.
what is the basis of good if not God?
also, again you're approaching this the wrong way, i'm hoping you read my earlier explanation about this
That reminds me of Kathy Bates' character in The Waterboy ("BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS THE DEVIL!!!!!").
Here's one of my favorite standup comedian, Patton Oswalt's (you may know him as the voice of Remy the Rat in Ratatouille very funny explanation about the origin of religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFrWe1zk4g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFrWe1zk4g)
can't deny that some people take religion in a whole 'nother level. that is why the Church is important in keeping the right teachings and people are not left to their own faculties, lest abuse and heresies stem from these
-
@dpogs and av_phile1 - will catholics be saved? is the catholic God the same as the christian God? ::) ;D
oh btw as ive previously posted, im catholic. how about the both of you? ( i assume you are christians. mind posting here, just exactly what type of christian? ie..protestant baptist born-agains? etc) tnxalot.
* indieboi and me, asked ahobbit what his religion was. seems he "disappeared"
av_phile1 answered the question. Has dpogs answered already?
-
I am not aware of any Catholic school that tackles the Bible cover to cover, Even the parish school my son attended here in multinational did not even tackle the Cathechism which I recall I had as a kid when the Parrish school I attended was still ran by Belgiian missionaries. This is actually my complaint about modern catholic schools. The Catholic Church in this country seems to have gone complacently ignorant about the effects of those TV evangelical shows like Ang Dating Daan or INC fulfilling this role and giving some wrong interpretations of the Bible than doing it themselves in their own schools.
for Catholics, the Bible isn't the teaching authority (how can a book be a teaching authority) but the Church itself, which was established by Christ
the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) is the primary teaching tool of the Church. i agree with you, this one should be universally taught in all Catholic schools. as is, most schools now that call themselves Catholic schools aren't Catholic schools anymore, but private schools that are in it for the money, and just capitalize on the Catholic name and "branding" (naming their school after a saint or Jesus or an event in the Bible) so as they can use this as marketing
most religion teachers aren't even Catechists or someone from a religous order (nun, religious brother, priest). some are just plain teachers who follow the teaching plan
-
av_phile1 answered the question. Has dpogs answered already?
he pm'd me ;D
@sir dpogs, paki-pm din si sir indieboi tnx
-
Got the PM. I'll respectfully answer it here though.
Believe me, I admire professions of faith but hopefully you also understand that I cannot fathom why you should choose to keep your denomination private when it is fundamental in truly understanding your opinions and knowing where you come from, so to speak. Av_phile revealed that he is more into pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and it really revealed a lot. At least now I know where he's coming from when he posts about his beliefs.
Since it is only fair to answer my own question, here it is. I've been raised a devout catholic and even went to catholic schools. I even seriously entertained entering the priesthood before I went to college. But I've always been a free thinker so I began to question catholicism, faith and religion in general. Bottomline is, I still go to church, I consider the Black Nazarene my patron and I'm a Marian to the bone, but I'm not afraid to question dogma and I believe I won't burn in hell for doing so.
In my opinion, I would rather question faith and God first then believe, than to blindly follow something without questioning anything. I think that I have a healthier relationship with God because of this.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi -- "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-
And before this starts a flame war. It's my personal opinion. Not attacking anyone personally. No offense meant.
-
but I'm not afraid to question dogma and I believe I won't burn in hell for doing so.
In my opinion, I would rather question faith and God first then believe, than to blindly follow something without questioning anything. I think that I have a healthier relationship with God because of this.
Questioning dogma is not the same as abandoning or repudiating it. I myself have passed that period of skepticism. It was a healthy mental exercise.
But faith is a gift, a blessing from God. It is not the result of getting satisfactory answers from any kind of skepticsm. If everything in religion were provable, tangible, visible, or comprehensible, where or what do you put your belief or faith in? If there were no other-worldly mysteries in a religion, how would it be any different from a rotary club or a homeowner's association? Why even bother?
"Blessed are those who did not see, but believe" - the essence of faith.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi -- "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Exactly. Good thing it's not the Christians you're worshiping. ;D
-
Wow, a lot happened since last night. Young Earth Creationist din pala si dpogs, pareho sila ni aHobbit.
A lot of what you cut and pasted has also been added to the discussion by aHobbit. But some of the premises are even wrong. For example, evolution never clamed that mammals evolved from birds. If they're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise. And I suppose mentioning animals like Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik) won't really make a difference to people who don't believe in evolution.
I have a question though for dpogs and other YEC. Do you even watch any of the documentary channels? History, Discovery, NGC--every other program must be so heretical that it's not even amusing. Programs about planets, geology, earthquakes, volcanoes, biology, practically anything that deals with the past I'm guessing will, in the course of the hour, say something that will disagree with your belief. Would you even listen to/believe in science after seeing all of those glaring mistakes? These aren't even little mistakes where it's 200% or even 1000% off. At least in the case of the age of the earth, they are 45 million percent off! How can we believe anything they say.
-
"Blessed are those who did not see, but believe" - the essence of faith.
reminds me of Saint Augustine.... his willingness to accept that much of our belief about the world must as a matter of practical necessity rest upon trust and authority
hence, x2 !!! 8)
-
Wow, a lot happened since last night. Young Earth Creationist din pala si dpogs, pareho sila ni aHobbit.
A lot of what you cut and pasted has also been added to the discussion by aHobbit. But some of the premises are even wrong. For example, evolution never clamed that mammals evolved from birds. If they're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise. And I suppose mentioning animals like Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik) won't really make a difference to people who don't believe in evolution.
I have a question though for dpogs and other YEC. Do you even watch any of the documentary channels? History, Discovery, NGC--every other program must be so heretical that it's not even amusing. Programs about planets, geology, earthquakes, volcanoes, biology, practically anything that deals with the past I'm guessing will, in the course of the hour, say something that will disagree with your belief. Would you even listen to/believe in science after seeing all of those glaring mistakes? These aren't even little mistakes where it's 200% or even 1000% off. At least in the case of the age of the earth, they are 45 million percent off! How can we believe anything they say.
one question though: was evolution been proved? this missing link been found? even Darwin admit that loophole in evolution.
honestly... everytime i watched Discovery channel, read national geographics my faith in God grows. i am always amazed how nature behave itself, the diversity of nature, almost work in perfect harmony (then comes human intervention destroying nature)... the vastness of space... how mathematically perfect/precision in terms of planet displacement, gravity, land mass, orbits, revolution... etc... all of these must be a work of something greater than us. all of these is a perfect creation of God. i just cannot believe paanong nagawa ng tao (those so called atheist scientist) na idivert ang attention natin how magnificently God created the heaven and earth to a "Big Bang Theory".
especially when it comes to human anatomy... i just cant believe paanong ang randomization ay nagresulta ng ganitong kagandang katawan... our human brain much powerful than any computer built... every part of our cell have a function... how our body produce anti-bodies to protect us...whew... truly God is Master Creator of this world. we all know that nothing can be made from nothing. there must be a Master Creator.
with these kind of evidence, atheist still choose to ignore the presence of God.
-
Evolution didn't say there is no God.
-
one question though: was evolution been proved?
Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but is your understanding of evolution limited to "man descended from apes?"
Have you taken it upon yourself to read beyond that, sir, or do you reject all other literature because they are "works of the devil?"
Part of the theory of evolution is natural selection, or, survival of the fittest. Do you also reject that, sir, even though it is actually observable (weaker individuals or populations die, fitter ones survive)? Do you realize that this part of evolution is observable even in non-biological systems? For example, in economics—products, companies and entire industries evolve or die according to their general economic/socio-political/historical environment.
A bigger part of the theory of evolution is evolutionary biology which concerns genetics, heredity and the biological/genetic changes in populations over time. Do you reject that all known living organisms have DNA, sir? That heredity happens? That mutations occur? That populations of organisms have been observed to change in response to their environment, sometimes only over dozens of generations? That speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) has been observed in dozens of plant and animal species?
I suppose to you these are all lies perpetuated by unbelievers.
-
hmmm... and then... saan nagggaling ang tao? based on theory of evolution.
from a single cell?
saan nanggaling ang lahat ng nakikita natin ngayon?
to believe in evolution is simply a blinded faith. evolutionist cannot prove what really happened. instead they come out with so many theories against one acceptable explanation... Creation.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." just like that... whew... how marvelous.
back to the idea of atheism...
some atheist argue that animism and ancestor worship, both implicit forms of atheism (or forms of non-theism) are the earliest spiritual belief systems and predate any formal religion.
but this was already explained by The Bible
"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."
how will the atheist explain that our ancestors (deprived of the Bible, without knowledge of religion) decided to worship an "unknown god"?
our ancestors were aware that there is a supreme being, much more powerful than nature.
Just as God gives infants the natural instinct to suckle the breast without them having to be taught to do so, He also establishes in every human the instinctive knowledge of His existence and the ability to clearly discern it through the light of nature.
-
hmmm... and then... saan nagggaling ang tao? based on theory of evolution.
Is that question meant to be rhetorical, sir?
Here's a scientific answer: not from extant apes.
As sardaukar said, if you're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise.
to believe in evolution is simply a blinded faith. evolutionist cannot prove what really happened.
Wrong. First, it's not "blind faith". There's an abundance of observed evidence, fossil evidence, and supporting sciences.
Second, nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously (mathematically) proved, or ever will be. But the current theory is largely consistent with itself and available evidence. It's long since eclipsed Darwin.
but this was already explained by The Bible
Ad nauseam
-
Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html
Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?
-
how will the atheist explain that our ancestors (deprived of the Bible, without knowledge of religion) decided to worship an "unknown god"?
Im not an atheist but I'd think the belief in the non-existence of a supreme being, or the doubt in the belief in/about God came with mankind's intellectual development. Didnt we all believe in Santa Klaus when we were children?
-
Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html
Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?
maybe because there is a two different timeline, from a view of an atheist and theist.
then the problem now : how accurate are those method used to determine the age of fossils?
another debatable statement/question.
-
maybe because there is a two different timeline, from a view of an atheist and theist.
then the problem now : how accurate are those method used to determine the age of fossils?
another debatable statement/question.
Dpogs have you seen any of the NatGeo/Discovery Channel/History Channel special about "possible" remains of places during the time of Christ? - 2000 years ago. Try to consider the depth of those remains..then compare that to how deep natural gas or oil have to be dug. I think it's easy to imagine that those fossil fuels would have to be far far older than 2x2000 = 4000 years..isn't it?
-
What's the theist's view? I believe in God but I don't take the the creation story from Genesis literally.
-
Is that question meant to be rhetorical, sir?
Here's a scientific answer: not from extant apes.
As sardaukar said, if you're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise.Wrong. First, it's not "blind faith". There's an abundance of observed evidence, fossil evidence, and supporting sciences.
Second, nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously (mathematically) proved, or ever will be. But the current theory is largely consistent with itself and available evidence. It's long since eclipsed Darwin.
Ad nauseam
if not from extant apes... what what kind of species we came from? any evolutionst cannot provide fossil evidence where we came from, and yet atheist simply believed evolution?
that is "blinded faith".
or lets say... i am so close minded that i cannot grasp the idea of 'non-exsistence of God' or the other way around.... atheist are so close minded to believe the existence of God and ignore the fact that God is very evident in nature (heaven and earth) and in their heart.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
-
What's the theist's view? I believe in God but I don't take the the creation story from Genesis literally.
The problem lies in the translation from Hebrew. The Hebrew language is the poorest of all languages, extant and dead. It only has less than 9,000 words compared to half a million in English. Especially problematic are the nouns which are even fewer and can mean many things under different contexts and idioms.
The Hebrew word Yom appears in various parts of the bible to mean a 24-hour period, a season, a year, 40 years, time, evermore, a time period, a point in time and an age. I can't recall where it all started that the bible interpreters insisted the literal meaning of the story of creation as seven 24-hour days when there were bible scholars in the past who already recognized that the word Yom in the Genesis creation means an age. It could be millions or billions of years for each Yom. The word Yom used in the creation actually has different meanings even within the context of creation
To the God of the bible, time is of no moment. A billion years can be just a day to Him because he created the universe independent of time which He also created. God's concept of time is not ours to understand. In addition. there was no sense for Moses to describe the creation of the world in terms of millions of years because the people then have no idea what a million is. And the fact is that the language then didn't offer much beyond Yom. That is why in promising Abraham his descendants, God didn't say "You will have a million descendants" because Abraham would have replied "what is a million?" Instead, a more picturesque analogy is made: "Your children will be as the sands."
The story of creation is not only doctrinally sound it carries scientific logic if you were God doing some terraforming work and describing from where you are doing the creation, not from heaven above.
-
dpogs, people here question the existence of God, so you can't use the Bible as source.
-
if not from extant apes... what what kind of species we came from?
Since you had to ask, the current theory is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which is thought to have existed 5-8 million years ago. One likely candidate is Australopithecus.
any evolutionst cannot provide fossil evidence where we came from, and yet atheist simply believed evolution?
Gaps in the fossil record exist, but that's expected, and it doesn't disprove the theory in general. But many transitional fossils have been found.
And no, in general we don't "simply believe" in evolution. The skeptic must weigh it equally with other myths or theories of universal origin, and constantly revisit or re-examine it against newer studies and evidence.
It so happens that current cosmological theory and evolutionary theory are more self-consistent, and are more consistent with other scientific theories on the observable universe and so it makes more sense to believe those, rather than, say, a young earth.
that is "blinded faith"
With all due respect, sir, the term is blind faith.
And it cannot be "blind" faith if there's theory, science, observation and evidence.
To be fair, it's not "blind faith" either if you seriously study the Bible, theology or catechism. On the other hand, most Christians or Catholics can't claim as much. They just take what their pastor or priest tells them without question. Now that is blind.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists
Two things.
First, of course belief in God requires faith.
Second, and more importantly, if someone believed in the Bible as the Word of God then they obviously believe in God to begin with. So they can't use the Bible as evidence for God because, well, that's called a tautology.
If you had came from a position where you acknowledge the diversity of various books in the Bible and their origins and literary forms—where some parts of it are allegorical, some are poetry, song, parables, and yes, some coincide well with recorded history—then this would be a much, much more productive and encouraging discussion.
-
Dpogs have you seen any of the NatGeo/Discovery Channel/History Channel special about "possible" remains of places during the time of Christ? - 2000 years ago. Try to consider the depth of those remains..then compare that to how deep natural gas or oil have to be dug. I think it's easy to imagine that those fossil fuels would have to be far far older than 2x2000 = 4000 years..isn't it?
God placed them there, that deep underground, to begin with?
-
Since you had to ask, the current theory is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which is thought to have existed 5-8 million years ago. One likely candidate is Australopithecus.
And it cannot be "blind" faith if there's theory, science, observation and evidence.
ohh... sorry... im not gramatically correct sometimes... you know... :D
"one likely candidate is Australopithecus".
what you mean by "likely candidate"... is that you called an observation and evidence... in court you will not win a case if you present the evidence in terms of "likely candidate".
is this australopithecus species is "Lucy" in particular? as far as i know it ("lucy") is a hoax.
considereing it is not a hoax... saan nanggaling ang species na australopithecus... and so on and so forth.. until pumunta tayo sa single cell... and then from nothing... in a very logical and intellectual thinking... where on earth can we find that a matter was created from nothing (or that something came out from nothing)?
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
-
God placed them there, that deep underground, to begin with?
Yes, to mess with the heads of future scientists. :D
-
dpogs, people here question the existence of God, so you can't use the Bible as source.
na post ko na rin ang logical reason sa existence of God.
naisip ko lang... if i cannot use the Bible as a proof of God's existence...
puwede ko rin bang sabihing "birth certificate" is not a proof of a certain person's existence?
or i can claim that the next person na magpost ay walang mga magulang or i can just simple ignore his/her existence.
hmmm.... it is acceptable???
-
dpogs.
Valid yung birth certificate kasi me witnesses. As for the bible, God didn't write it. People did.
-
Yes, to mess with the heads of future scientists. :D
And for God to test our faith. ;D
-
dpogs.
Valid yung birth certificate kasi me witnesses. As for the bible, God didn't write it. People did.
hmmm.... valid ang birth certificate kasi may witness... pero paano ipoprove ng birth certificate mo na nageexist ka nga? eh di mo naman sinulat yan... sinulat ng tao yan...
or nakita ng mga tao na ipinanganak ka at linagay nila sa birth certificate mo (to prove na nag-eexist ka nga) para maniwala ang iba na ipinanganak ka nga. tama?
how about... iyong mga author ng books of the Bible naranasan nila na may diyos or sila mismo ang witness na may diyos kaya sinulat nila ang tungkol sa Diyos para malaman ng iba na may Diyos.
hmmm... so anything 'people' write di dapat paniwalaan? it includes your birth certificate...
how do you know that your birth certificate is of your own? new born ka pa habang ginagawa ang birth certificate mo? maybe na brainwash ka lang ng mga magulang mo na maniwalang anak ka nila? paano mo nalaman na mga magulang mo nga sila (new born ka pa lang noon)?
-
dpogs,
I'm not so sure if I'm going elaborate further on my birth certificate :)
I'm Catholic but I don't believe everything the Bible says. For me, the Bible is a source of hope, enlightenment, with some really nice stories :)
I have to ask you. Is your God, the real God? What if Allah or Brahma is the real God? You have your Bible, the Muslims have the Koran, the Hindus have their scriptures etc. All of you will quote your texts, so who will win?:)
-
dpogs,
I'm not so sure if I'm going elaborate further on my birth certificate :)
I'm Catholic but I don't believe everything the Bible says. For me, the Bible is a source of hope, enlightenment, with some really nice stories :)
I have to ask you. Is your God, the real God? What if Allah or Brahma is the real God? You have your Bible, the Muslims have the Koran, the Hindus have their scriptures etc. All of you will quote your texts, so who will win?:)
sir,
i just want to make a point. im just making a conversation out of birth certicicate to prove that Almighty Creator does exist.
the way i question the authenticity of our birth certificate over our existence is the way atheist question the existence of God.
-
There is a flaw with your argument. A birth certificate is a legal document. Universally accepted. The Bible is not.
We can't blame the atheists if they don't believe in God. Tama nga naman na ipinanganak ka ng walang idea ng diyos. Kung lumaki silang wala idea ng diyos, mahihirapan tayong mga naniniwala na paniwalain sila. Kasing hirap na paniwalain ang mga taga ibang relihiyon na ang Diyos natin ang tunay na Diyos.
-
Commercial: Please try to watch one of BBC's new docs... The 6-part A History Of Christianity now on it's 5th part.
Ok back to regular programming. ;)
-
There is a flaw with your argument. A birth certificate is a legal document. Universally accepted. The Bible is not.
what dpogs meant was that if the Bible is not a true testament to the existence of God because it was written by man (dispute of an Atheist), then all the other man made documents should be stricken as proof of existence or factuality as well - or something to that effect.
-
Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html
Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?
the various Churches, including Catholicism, has stated time and again that the theory of evolution does not entirely go against the faith
in fact, if you think about it, the story of creation is all to similar with the Big Bang. and the sequence of events in Genesis is the same sequence that science finds in evolution, despite the fact that Genesis was written 4000 years ago. Genesis states that stars came before the animals before the humans. thats pretty factual especially to people with no concept of science
-
Got the PM. I'll respectfully answer it here though.
Believe me, I admire professions of faith but hopefully you also understand that I cannot fathom why you should choose to keep your denomination private when it is fundamental in truly understanding your opinions and knowing where you come from, so to speak. Av_phile revealed that he is more into pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and it really revealed a lot. At least now I know where he's coming from when he posts about his beliefs.
Since it is only fair to answer my own question, here it is. I've been raised a devout catholic and even went to catholic schools. I even seriously entertained entering the priesthood before I went to college. But I've always been a free thinker so I began to question catholicism, faith and religion in general. Bottomline is, I still go to church, I consider the Black Nazarene my patron and I'm a Marian to the bone, but I'm not afraid to question dogma and I believe I won't burn in hell for doing so.
In my opinion, I would rather question faith and God first then believe, than to blindly follow something without questioning anything. I think that I have a healthier relationship with God because of this.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi -- "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
i agree with you. following faith blindly is wrong. God did not make revelations so we can follow blindly
its good to explore the faith and learn more why. i grew in faith when i questioned it and studied it closer. now i understand more which supports my faith better
-
Wow, a lot happened since last night. Young Earth Creationist din pala si dpogs, pareho sila ni aHobbit.
A lot of what you cut and pasted has also been added to the discussion by aHobbit. But some of the premises are even wrong. For example, evolution never clamed that mammals evolved from birds. If they're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise. And I suppose mentioning animals like Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik) won't really make a difference to people who don't believe in evolution.
I have a question though for dpogs and other YEC. Do you even watch any of the documentary channels? History, Discovery, NGC--every other program must be so heretical that it's not even amusing. Programs about planets, geology, earthquakes, volcanoes, biology, practically anything that deals with the past I'm guessing will, in the course of the hour, say something that will disagree with your belief. Would you even listen to/believe in science after seeing all of those glaring mistakes? These aren't even little mistakes where it's 200% or even 1000% off. At least in the case of the age of the earth, they are 45 million percent off! How can we believe anything they say.
i myself subscribe to the young earth belief. for one thing, evolution is full of holes. it seems every new discover disproves the last, so to me its a clear indication that they haven't proven anything yet and that they haven't made up their mind yet. or maybe they have, until the next discovery when they re-write everything yet again
and one glaring mistake of evolution is the assumption that something they've observed for 10, 20 or 50 years will act the same over a long period of time, therefore they conclude that it will take thousands or millions of years to take place. its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.
also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often. but we're not. we have the same species 2000 years ago as we have today. there should be some species that are in evolutionary transition that would have completed a cycle within the last 500 years. but we haven't been able to find any.
-
puwede ko rin bang sabihing "birth certificate" is not a proof of a certain person's existence?
Sir, a birth certificate is not a proof of a person's existence.
It's just a document that supposedly records a person's birth, their parents, and so on.
Like other documents, it can be faked.
The chain of causality goes, "a person is born" -> "a birth certificate is made for that event".
It's not, "a birth certificate is written" -> "a person is born".
-
i myself subscribe to the young earth belief. for one thing, evolution is full of holes. it seems every new discover disproves the last, so to me its a clear indication that they haven't proven anything yet and that they haven't made up their mind yet. or maybe they have, until the next discovery when they re-write everything yet again
Boss, the entire recorded history of science is full of holes in theories that were later completed, refined, or even completely rewritten. Or the theory can be discarded, if a better model with more can be shown to fit the empirical data. That's how science works.
Until today, there are 'holes' in how certain diseases originate and progress. Up until the 1950's, the structure of DNA was a big 'hole'. Up until Mendel in the 1800's, the theories behind heredity were full of holes.
Would you deny that, it's possible that your child will inherit some disease from you? What if they said they can treat that disease by repressing the gene? Would you say, "No thanks, genetics is full of holes?"
its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.
True, but no other evidence, or no other model can better fit all existing observations and data. Going back to oil and fossils buried deep underground, under layers of volcanic rock, for example—how could they be there if they hadn't been buried for at least longer than 6000 years?
also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often. but we're not.
Sir, Speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) has been observed, in the wild and in labs.
-
Sir, Speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) has been observed, in the wild and in labs.
In labs, yes. clearly pointing to the fact behind every living thing, there's deliberate conscious design, a creator and cannot happen by mere chance. The genetic code could not be sequenced not until the advent of supercomupters. And took them nearly a decade to get it done. Clearly shows how immensely staggering the complexity of the code is in its design no mere mortal could make. Much less leaving it to happen by chance. Something as complex as the quadrinaric genetic code cannot happen by chance. It was designed. Not a spontaneous chance.
-
Sir, a birth certificate is not a proof of a person's existence.
It's just a document that supposedly records a person's birth, their parents, and so on.
Like other documents, it can be faked.
The chain of causality goes, "a person is born" -> "a birth certificate is made for that event".
It's not, "a birth certificate is written" -> "a person is born".
The following is not to attack you personally. Just a conversation...
Sir,
I choose not to believe that you not exist. You want me to prove that you not exist? Do i need to prove the negative?
or puwede ko ring sabihin na....
You are not your parents true child. Kahit anong proof ang ibigay mo sa akin di ako maniniwala... you even dont witness how you were born. When you are a newborn child, you have no idea of your parents. Paano mo nalman na anak ka nga nila... baka naman nabrainwash ka lang na anak ka nila... your parents does not exist. you just came from nowhere.
-
I choose not to believe that you not exist.
You can choose to believe in whatever you want. Unicorns, flying pink elephants. You are a free-thinking person, and are therefore entitled to that.
Kahit anong proof ang ibigay mo sa akin di ako maniniwala...
Then there's no use having a 'conversation' with you, is there?
Kahit sabihin sayo nang doktor, may cancer ka, heto x-ray, heto biopsy report. Kung ayaw mong maniwala na may cancer ka, at na ang tanging gamot ay chemo/radio... well, that's your prerogative. After all, medical science is full of holes.
How do you know the doctor didn't just make up the x-ray? Did you actually witness the lab technician looking into the microscope and writing the biopsy report? I guess if you choose not to believe in them, well, that's your choice.
Read up on epistemology.
How do you know you're not just a brain in a vat?
-
Most likely, anyone here can "still" find a valid witness to your own birth, the authenticity of your birth certificate, your actual existence right now, your legitimacy or otherwise, and even that of your parents. As for the truthfulness of what the Bible states, that is a matter of faith.
This feels like comparing the Theory Of Everything (which scientists are still trying to figure out) to the idea that if you cross the Pacific from the east coast of the Philippines, you would eventually reach the American continents.
-
In labs, yes. clearly pointing to the fact behind every living thing, there's deliberate conscious design, a creator and cannot happen by mere chance.
In the wild, too, sir.
Also, there are three things you conclude from speciation, which are orthogonal and can be addressed independently.
deliberate concious design: I don't see the connection, sir. Speciation can happen simply when a population is isolated, say, in an island. No need to invoke 'design'.
a creator: Again, sir, I don't see the need to jump to conclusions. If organic, self-replicating compounds can be created in a lab, does that constitute proof of a Creator?
The genetic code could not be sequenced not until the advent of supercomupters. And took them nearly a decade to get it done. Clearly shows how immensely staggering the complexity of the code is in its design no mere mortal could make. Much less leaving it to happen by chance. Something as complex as the quadrinaric genetic code cannot happen by chance. It was designed. Not a spontaneous chance.
Sir, complexity can emerge from systems with relatively simple rules. See emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).
Also, I think it's inaccurate to characterize macro-evolution as happening "by random chance." You can think of a 'fitness function' that basically describes how a population is likely to survive given its environment and other species.
In fact, I'm even willing to believe the anthropic principle and the Clockwork Universe Theory, where a Creator could have simply created the Universe with its existing properties and physical laws, setting in motion everything that eventually led to galactic, solar system, planetary formation, abiogenesis, then evolution, then you and me posting on this thread.
But it doesn't have be "conscious, deliberate design."
-
how about... iyong mga author ng books of the Bible naranasan nila na may diyos or sila mismo ang witness na may diyos kaya sinulat nila ang tungkol sa Diyos para malaman ng iba na may Diyos.
The books of the bible were written 50 to 75 years after Christ’s death. It was communicated verbally before that. Imagine the errors built into the these books when relayed through the word of mouth. Can we really trust the contents of the bible?
http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm
It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).
See also:
http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it
-
The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.
Whether we like it or not we just believe that we are our parents child. We came to believe that because our parents told us, our lolos lolas told us, there is a written testimony that we were born, whatever they say we just believe it. they present a proof you believe that what they got is true. the doctor said to our parents that we are their child and our parents just believe that on the first place they experienced it.
and how come that when a theist tell a story of how he/she experienced god in him/herself no one believe him/her. and when somebody came out to support his/her story and tell that he/she witness how this theist known god, no one believe him.
Everything is about faith... we just put our faith that there is god or no god.
Atheist and Theist alike are both close minded in their own belief.
Atheist : any proof you present to them that there is god, eventually they will just ignore it and will try to disprove creation.
Theist : any thing you said against their god will eventually lead them to defense it and prove that their god exist.
Atheist believe that everything the bible said is not true since it is written by human.
Did they just realize that all recorded history were written by human. all scientific theory were of human. if the Bible is historically correct and even a compilation of several authors every book in the bible does not contradict each other... still considered false... if it is historically correct how it become false (in terms of idea of God?)
You already experience or felt when somebody approach you and told you that you have no parents where in fact you know that you have parents. you just cant stand what they said...
if the idea of free thinking will be in the court they will 100% win the case.
A RIDDLE FOR ATHEISTS
Johnny is 11. He is being taught the principles of the american constitution and its amendments by his atheistic parents. Recent lessons given him has focused on the first amendment.
The other day, Johnny's school teacher gave him some math problems for homework. When his teacher checked his homework the next day, she was astonished that Johnny gave everyone of the problems incorrect answers.
His teacher therefore called him to her desk and asked him had he forgotten how to solve such problems. But Johnny said to his teacher, "None of my answers are incorrect." His teacher asked him why did he say such, and he said, "Because the answers are the ones I believe them to be, and I have a constitutional right to my opinion. You have the opinion that the answers should be such and such, but I say differently. You cannot say my answers are wrong. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If you are dogmatic that my answers should be the same as yours, that makes you self-righteous and a biggot. If you say my answers are wrong, you are judging me. Judge not lest you be judged. I deserve an 'A' like everyone else."
The riddle is this: Who is right, Johnny or his teacher? Is there an atheist who can solve this riddle?
a creator: Again, sir, I don't see the need to jump to conclusions. If organic, self-replicating compounds can be created in a lab, does that constitute proof of a Creator?
Sir, complexity can emerge from systems with relatively simple rules. See emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).
self-replicating compound: saan nanggaling ito... from nothing? if you backtrace them... saan na naman tayo mapupunta... sa single cell in the beginning... where did it came from? ... again it is faith to assume that they are just right there ... waiting for a moment na magtugtugma ang lahat to form life (faith again).
-
and one glaring mistake of evolution is the assumption that something they've observed for 10, 20 or 50 years will act the same over a long period of time, therefore they conclude that it will take thousands or millions of years to take place. its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.
Firstly, evolution is commonly not observed as happening in a person's lifetime. I'm assuming when you refer to 10, 20 or 50 years, you're talking about someone observing populations of animals and seeing if/how they change. What scientists observe is the fossil record which stretches back millions of years. So they make conclusions from those data points. Not from what has happened in the last 50 years.
also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often. but we're not. we have the same species 2000 years ago as we have today. there should be some species that are in evolutionary transition that would have completed a cycle within the last 500 years. but we haven't been able to find any.
Speciation happens on a time scale much longer than a few thousand years. But if you want a common example of animals heading towards speciation then you can look at domesticated animals like dogs and sheep. The speciation is not yet complete but they'll probably get there. There are dozens of other examples but in the time scale you want to look at they mostly involve insects due to their much shorter life span.
-
Atheist and Theist alike are both close minded in their own belief.
Atheist : any proof you present to them that there is god, eventually they will just ignore it and will try to disprove creation.
Theist : any thing you said against their god will eventually lead them to defense it and prove that their god exist.
Ah, but see, there is no proof. You said yourself, God requires faith. So there is no proof that a theist can present to the atheist.
A RIDDLE FOR ATHEISTS
Johnny is 11. He is being taught the principles of the american constitution and its amendments by his atheistic parents. Recent lessons given him has focused on the first amendment.
The other day, Johnny's school teacher gave him some math problems for homework. When his teacher checked his homework the next day, she was astonished that Johnny gave everyone of the problems incorrect answers.
His teacher therefore called him to her desk and asked him had he forgotten how to solve such problems. But Johnny said to his teacher, "None of my answers are incorrect." His teacher asked him why did he say such, and he said, "Because the answers are the ones I believe them to be, and I have a constitutional right to my opinion. You have the opinion that the answers should be such and such, but I say differently. You cannot say my answers are wrong. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If you are dogmatic that my answers should be the same as yours, that makes you self-righteous and a biggot. If you say my answers are wrong, you are judging me. Judge not lest you be judged. I deserve an 'A' like everyone else."
The riddle is this: Who is right, Johnny or his teacher? Is there an atheist who can solve this riddle?
That's not a riddle. Johnny is correct if he can prove he is correct. If he has evidence that his answer is correct then we have a genius on our hands and everyone will pay attention. If he doesn't have proof, then, well, he's wrong.
-
That's not a riddle. Johnny is correct if he can prove he is correct. If he has evidence that his answer is correct then we have a genius on our hands and everyone will pay attention. If he doesn't have proof, then, well, he's wrong.
Then prove that you are correct when saying that there is no Mighty Creator. As much as Johnny cannot prove that 1+1 is not equal to 2.
Ah, but see, there is no proof. You said yourself, God requires faith. So there is no proof that a theist can present to the atheist.
there is proof... atheist just ignore them. God is very evident in nature and in you heart and conscience.
samething sa isang tao na nagsasabing wala siyang nagawang pagkakamali kahit minsan. He/She just ignore the fact na may ginawang siyang mali.
-
i myself subscribe to the young earth belief.
My original question for the YEC was this: How can we believe anything scientists say if they can get the age of the earth so very very very wrong?
To expound further, the age of the earth is so ingrained in practically all brances of science (from cosmology, astronomy, geology down to biology)--who pretty much all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years--that if you don't accept that age as true how can you accept anything else they say?
-
Then prove that you are correct when saying that there is no Mighty Creator. As much as Johnny cannot prove that 1+1 is not equal to 2.
This is the point: There is proof that 1 + 1 = 2. If you say 1 + 1 = 3 then show me your proof. See where the burden lies?
there is proof... atheist just ignore them. God is very evident in nature and in you heart and conscience.
samething sa isang tao na nagsasabing wala siyang nagawang pagkakamali kahit minsan. He/She just ignore the fact na may ginawang siyang mali.
God either requires faith or there is no proof. If there is proof then faith is not necessary. Which is it?
-
The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.
Faith is believing without reason.
Since this is your point, then we cannot continue this discussion reasonably.
-
The point is... whether you like it or not... there is God.
We cannot prove it or even disprove it. It requires faith to believe that there is God.
And it also requires faith to say that there is no god.
Does evolution prove that there is no god?
Does cosmology discoveries states that god does not exist?
Atheist just believe that there is no god (that is faith).
-
what dpogs meant was that if the Bible is not a true testament to the existence of God because it was written by man (dispute of an Atheist), then all the other man made documents should be stricken as proof of existence or factuality as well - or something to that effect.
I understand his point. But the thing is, a birth certificate is not just something people write. Me mga witnesses dyan, dumaraan sa proseso na accepted ng lahat.
-
The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.
We can never be 100% certain of the things we experience or remember, sure. But that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably certain of certain things. Also, certain belief system are more self-coherent than others.
If you believe A, and you believe B, but B contradicts A, you have to pause and critically examine your beliefs. Otherwise, you're just... being irrational.
You can't, for example, believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but also believe that oil and diamonds take thousands of years to form under heat and pressure.
You can't just believe that God placed the stars one by one in the heavens, then believe that gravitation which can explain satellite and planetary orbits and trips to the moon but doesn't cause matter to coalesce and form stars and planets.
Otherwise—well, you'd be contradicting yourself and I'm afraid there's no cure for that.
even a compilation of several authors every book in the bible does not contradict each other... still considered false...
You honestly wouldn't want to rattle that hornet's nest. Numerous Biblical passages, taken literally and out of context, are contradictory.
-
Then we are going back again to the same question...
Where are all these things came from?
Does matter just came from nothing? (im not talking about replicating, or evolution, its the existence of everything)
Everything that exist today, where they came from?
-
I, as a 'theist', believe that everything are created by Mighty Creator.
As far as know, as far as i understand it to the best of my ability:
'atheist' believe that everything just came from nothing.
-
The point is... whether you like it or not... there is God.
Well, if you say so, sir!
We cannot prove it or even disprove it. It requires faith to believe that there is God.
I agree.
And it also requires faith to say that there is no god.
Not faith in the religious sense, but yes, it is a belief structure like any other.
Does evolution prove that there is no god?
No.
Does cosmology discoveries states that god does not exist?
No.
-
I understand his point. But the thing is, a birth certificate is not just something people write. Me mga witnesses dyan, dumaraan sa proseso na accepted ng lahat.
may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it
all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected. and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement. thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is
-
Firstly, evolution is commonly not observed as happening in a person's lifetime. I'm assuming when you refer to 10, 20 or 50 years, you're talking about someone observing populations of animals and seeing if/how they change. What scientists observe is the fossil record which stretches back millions of years. So they make conclusions from those data points. Not from what has happened in the last 50 years.
the concept of evolution is that a species changes to adapt to the environment over a period of time. yes, it takes thousands of years for each process to complete. but that doesn't mean that something didn't start 5-10 thousand years ago and complete today. we should have seen animals change in the last few hundred or even thousands of years as they transition from one species to the next. especially with all the radical changes man has introduced to many environment. and yet not one has shown any significant change that would fit what scientists theorized as macro evolution
Speciation happens on a time scale much longer than a few thousand years. But if you want a common example of animals heading towards speciation then you can look at domesticated animals like dogs and sheep. The speciation is not yet complete but they'll probably get there. There are dozens of other examples but in the time scale you want to look at they mostly involve insects due to their much shorter life span.
nothing happens to dogs and sheep, they're still dogs and sheep. the color of their fur may change, or their height, but they're still dogs and sheep
-
may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it
all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected. and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement. thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is
The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.
-
The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.
ilang witnesses ba kelangan makakita? even if there were a million present there, i bet you still would not be satisfied today
because all who witnessed will become disciples, tapos sasabihin mo puro disciples din lang niya nakakita
-
The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.
you cannot use this argument since wala pang nakakita ng evolution (while they are in a transitional or evolution state)... or even wala pang nakakita ng big bang theory...
all animal can adopt to their environment... but still their offspring (or they may say - replicates) still of the same kind.
Please confirm. I am still confuse... does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?
-
choy,
If someone in your office told you he turned water into wine, rose from the dead, would you believe the guy? Assuming he did, he would need to document the whole thing, have it approved by a governing body as proof.
The Bible is not a book of facts. If it was, then it would have been made a textbook. Then there would be no Hindus, Muslims, etc. Even us Christians can't agree amongst ourselves. We have Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox churches and a whole lot more.
The atheists need proof. That we don't have.
-
you cannot use this argument since wala pang nakakita ng evolution (while they are in a transitional or evolution state)... or even wala pang nakakita ng big bang theory...
We are complex organisms. We don't just evolve. But you can use viruses as samples. They are very much evolving.
-
Does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?
-
but that doesn't mean that something didn't start 5-10 thousand years ago and complete today. we should have seen animals change in the last few hundred or even thousands of years as they transition from one species to the next.
Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but are you saying that evolution could've started 5 to 10 thousand years ago and completed today?
If so, then yes we should have seen animals change in the last few thousand years. The fact that full speciation takes longer is in fact an argument that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.
nothing happens to dogs and sheep, they're still dogs and sheep. the color of their fur may change, or their height, but they're still dogs and sheep
Have you ever tried to breed, say, a Chihuahua with a Great Dane, sir? Even just mating similar breeds, like a Shih-Tzu and a Maltese won't always produce successful or fertile offspring.
That means only a little more and we have to start calling them separate species, not just breeds.
-
may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it
all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected. and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement. thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is
Please expound on this. Do you have sources outside the bible?
-
Does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?
You could say that. Let's wait for the atheists. Assuming they do, what do you have in mind?
-
Please expound on this. Do you have sources outside the bible?
That Jesus was a historical figure is documented outside of the Bible. Yeshua is mentioned in the Talmud, Isa al-Masiḥ is mentioned in the Qur'an, and lots of Greco-Roman sources mention the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)
Edit: Sorry, I'm only pertaining to Jesus' historicity. If you were asking about the Resurrection, then I don't know.
-
you cannot use this argument since wala pang nakakita ng evolution (while they are in a transitional or evolution state)... or even wala pang nakakita ng big bang theory...
Sir, wala ring nakakita nang first 7 days of Creation, as told in Genesis.
Wala ring nakakakita nang kuryente. Wala ring nakakita nang X-rays at UV light. Wala ring nakaka-alam nang exact na value nang pi.
And to recap, speciation has been observed. Mutation has been observed. Genetics and heredity are generally well-understood. Survival of the fittest occurs even in non-biological systems.
Is it possible that some things, even though we can't sense them or know them in an epistemological sense, are more plausible than others, because they are supported by other observations, data, experiments, and other bodies of knowledge?
Just because no one can say, "I was there when this photon left this distant star hundreds of years ago and traveled hundreds of light years to get here" doesn't mean they can't calculate the distance to that star (using triangulation), and, knowing the speed of light, determine its minimum age.
Unless, of course, you claim that the speed of light is not constant, in which case your model of physics intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Please confirm. I am still confuse... does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?
Atheists stand for one thing: There is no evidence of any god.
-
If God made it easy for us to believe that he exists then there's no more reason for 'choice' and free thinking. God is too infinite for our diminutive minds to comprehend and understand. And I believe that!
Our brain should've just been programmed to accept only True and False commands if all we require is proof to understand.
That's why I love the movie 'Matrix'. Morpheus believed in Neo. And in the end, Zion was saved. ;D
-
And what is the atheist's explanation of the "origin of everything"?
Sir, as i said... we cannot use the argument of
porket di natin nakita ang isang bagay ay hindi na ito nag-eexist...
-
In the wild, too, sir.
Also, there are three things you conclude from speciation, which are orthogonal and can be addressed independently.
deliberate concious design: I don't see the connection, sir. Speciation can happen simply when a population is isolated, say, in an island. No need to invoke 'design'.
Yes, its part of the adaptability and resiliency that's designed into the genetic structure of living things that allows them to adapt to their surroundings. That makes the design no less a masterpiece of the one Creator who not only designed individual living things but also made sure the design allows them to adapt to their surroundings.. Now if only man can create a computer than can replicate itself and adapt to the changes in its environment. Maybe soon enough.
a creator: Again, sir, I don't see the need to jump to conclusions. If organic, self-replicating compounds can be created in a lab, does that constitute proof of a Creator?
Oh very clearly. The fact that you need a lab to CREATE it, then it must have a CREATOR. It couldn't happen spontaneously or by chance. There's a deliberate conscious design. The fact that as simple as creating in a lab requires lab technician to CREATE one, how much more about a more complex and complete human being? or even a plant. It could not have come into being without some intervention of an intelligence billions of times more powerful than a lab technician.
Sir, complexity can emerge from systems with relatively simple rules. See emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).
I think that transistors clustering into an Intel chip by chance in a billion years has about the same likelihood as amoebas clustering into a salamander over a billion years.
In fact, I'm even willing to believe the anthropic principle and the Clockwork Universe Theory, where a Creator could have simply created the Universe with its existing properties and physical laws, setting in motion everything that eventually led to galactic, solar system, planetary formation, abiogenesis, then evolution, then you and me posting on this thread.
Yup, but even that requires some kind of design. The big bang theory supports the creation. Everything before and after that was part of a masterplan. Even looking at the simplest element in the universe, the hydrogen atom reveals a design so precise that if you so much as reduce by 2% or make stronger by 3/10 of 1% the nuclear forces between the neutron and the proton, there would no life at any time in the universe.
But it doesn't have be "conscious, deliberate design."
Perhaps, but it works both ways, it also doesn't have to be by chance. Between the two, I prefer the simpler possibility of a creator designing me rather than adhering to the statistical improbability I came from a monkey by natural selection or random genetic mutation.
-
Yes, its part of the adaptability and resiliency that's designed into the genetic structure of living things that allows them to adapt to their surroundings.
The adaptability and resiliency of the genetic structure is necessary since if life didn't adapt, it would've died out. That's exactly the whole point of natural selection.
Oh very clearly. The fact that you need a lab to CREATE it, then it must have a CREATOR.
My statement was in response to you saying that just because speciation is observed in the lab, then there must be intelligent design behind it.
That's like saying, "We threw a ton of of organic chemicals in a soup and we got a bunch of self-replicating amino acids" means "There must be intelligent design behind amino acids." There is a chemical order to their molecular structure, yes. Conscious, deliberate design, not necessarily.
Or, I throw a bunch of iron filings on a cardboard and some of them clumped together along magnetic lines means there must be intelligent design behind their arrangement. There is an order to their arrangement, yes. Conscious, deliberate design, not necessarily.
I think that transistors clustering into an Intel chip by chance in a billion years has about the same likelihood as amoebas clustering into a salamander over a billion years.
First, again, not by chance. By selection.
Second, yes, we went from lower life forms to higher life forms in about as much time, maybe not a billion years, but in that time frame.
Even looking at the simplest element in the universe, the hydrogen atom reveals a design so precise that if you so much as reduce by 2% or make stronger by 3/10 of 1% the nuclear forces between the neutron and the proton, there would no life at any time in the universe.
That's the anthropic principle. The counter to that, of course, is that we cannot be certain there won't be life in the universe if the fundamental constants or laws were changed.
There won't be life as we know it, definitely. It may be barren, yes, or life may just evolve just as naturally according to the laws of that universe.
Consider underwater volcanic vents. No one could've imagined an environment more hostile. Yet, as it turns out, they're teeming with life, perfectly adapted to that environment. In fact, some scientists think that these may have been the birthplace of organic life on Earth.
Now, if, for example, the Earth had more silicon than carbon, then I wouldn't be surprised if we had turned out as sapient, silicon-based life forms instead. If our atmosphere was methane, then maybe we'd be breathing methane.
So, Intelligent Design is not necessary to explain the presence of life attuned perfectly to its environment—because that's the nature of Life, if it exists, it's bound to be shaped by its environment.
I think a better argument might be that a life form so badly adapted for its environment, but it's there, thriving. Like, if we found fish living on the Moon, with no other life forms present. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any other explanation than somebody or something else put them there, on purpose.
Between the two, I prefer the simpler possibility of a creator designing me rather than adhering to the statistical improbability I came from a monkey by natural selection or random genetic mutation.
Actually, sir, I think it's quite easy to see complexity emerge from simple interactions and initial conditions. Coupled with evolution and natural selection, and given enough time, I think it's inevitable that sapient life will emerge.
But in that scenario God doesn't even have to consciously design or shape everything along the way. All God needs to do is set the initial conditions to make it so that eventually, humans evolve, acquire intelligence, and naturally start wondering about God. In this worldview, there is no conflict between science and Deism, or Theism (in general), or even Agnosticism.
God -> Universe -> emergence -> Life can be a coherent, rational statement, but, to turn it around and say
Life -> God doesn't necessarily follow (A -> B doesn't mean B -> A).
-
and what is the atheist's view on the 'origin of all things'?
-
and what is the atheist's view on the 'origin of all things'?
Iba-iba. You can use all creation theories, tanggalin mo lang yung "God" aspect.
-
i mean... if atheist doesnt believe in God as Creator of all things...
then... atheist believe that everythings else came out from 'nothing'.
or everything else was created without Creator (is this the same analogy : invention without the inventor)
Iba-iba. You can use all creation theories, tanggalin mo lang yung "God" aspect.
creation theories without the idea of God or Creator???
-
Ganito, gamitin ko yung Big Bang. Nagsimula sa singularity. Tapos itatanong mo kung san nagsimula yung singularity? Ang sagot mo, ke God, tama?
Ngayon, tanungin kita, san nagsimula si God? Sabihin mo, wala kasi sa kanya nagsimula. Di na kailangan ng isa pang creator.
Ganun din argument ng mga atheists. Na sa singularity nagsimula. Di na kailangan ng isa pang creator.
-
Ganito, gamitin ko yung Big Bang. Nagsimula sa singularity. Tapos itatanong mo kung san nagsimula yung singularity? Ang sagot mo, ke God, tama?
Ngayon, tanungin kita, san nagsimula si God? Sabihin mo, wala kasi sa kanya nagsimula. Di na kailangan ng isa pang creator.
Ganun din argument ng mga atheists. Na sa singularity nagsimula. Di na kailangan ng isa pang creator.
Correct. because Creator or God is the Alpha and the Omega.
I just can believe how the atheist believe that 'singularity' was just there... out from nothing.
is that is the kind of belief what they called scientific belief based on theory, observation, and evidence.
Isn't it a great example of great leap of faith.
-
creation theories without the idea of God or Creator???
Maybe the more appropriate term is cosmogeny.
But yes, there are various creation myths that don't have the conventional (Christian) notion of God as Creator.
In fact, even in numerous theistic creation myths the Universe merely existed, with no further explanation, before any god or gods.
-
I just can believe how the atheist believe that 'singularity' was just there... out from nothing.
I just can't believe how the Theist believes that God was just there... out of nothing.
Or, before you counter with the Cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments) about the First Cause—where does it say that the First Cause has to be the conventional notion of God?
Even if we accept the premise that something with no cause must have caused everything else, there's nothing there that says the first cause has to be God.
It could just be that—a singularity as the First Cause, an "uncaused cause", something that exists by necessity, exempt from causality.
Isn't it a great example of great leap of faith.
No more than a Creator God, and, with the rest of the cosmological and evolutionary story, many times more plausible than Genesis and a young earth.
-
No atheist is claiming that they know everything came from nothing or otherwise.
Isn't one of the reasons why scientists and researchers are studying the cosmos is to find out how the universe came to be? They still don't have a concrete answer but at least they're working on it scientifically. It is something that is yet to be discovered.
On a side note, we're seeing a continuing effort by the Vatican to work things out with science rather than against it in order to stay relevant with the times....and ensure its survival.
Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm)
-
Now it makes sense... that Atheism is not just about science... it is also another kind of religion or profession of faith without the notion of Mighty Creator.
-
Atheists don't believe in god/gods and have no religion. Simple as that.
Skepticism is a common trait among atheists though.
-
may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it
all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected. and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement. thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is
Peter denied Jesus three times.
-
Atheism is not just about science... it is also another kind of religion or profession of faith
Sir, unless you happen to like sounding absurd, you might want to look up the definition of religion, and faith as it pertains to religion.
-
it is not a religion, it is not a sect, is it a cult?
-
Nope. If you're really interested in atheists, I suggest you go beyond asking questions here and read books about the topic. Oh and by the way, google is your friend.
-
it is not a religion, it is not a sect, is it a cult?
Are you asking sincerely, or are you just being obstinate (and purposefully dense)?
-
im not an atheist so i just dont know where to categorize the atheist. or they just stand as an atheist.
kasi my personal belief, atheist is another form of religion since it requires faith, since it is not a religion definitely it is not a sect, isa na lang ang natitira... kulto.... and if it is not a kulto...
maybe i just let myself be satisfied sa sagot ni Sir Obsulete.
-
but then again... it is a religion... because it is a set of belief...
-
I see. You can't be bothered to use a search engine and read. Good night to you, sir.
-
I am right in the first place that Atheist is a religion... because what you believe about God is that there is no God. and to reinforce your belief about God you embrace evolution that further makes you a religion.
A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.
Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."
But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.
If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
A United States Federal Court of Appeals has now ruled ruled that Atheism is, indeed, a religion, under U.S. law. See http://www.google.com/search?&q=atheism+religion+court+rule&btnG=Search for details.
-
Existence of God need no proof since it is very evident in our life. Millions of people experienced how God works in their life. How God change them from worst to a better person. How God manifest on them by their works.
The whole universe display that there is a Creator who created everything. Mighty creator who perfectly put all the planets in their proper orbits. Engineered a fully functional brain and body and not only that He put soul into it thus giving us life, free will and rational thinking.
It only takes a simple faith to know and felt HIS presence in this world. Faith that will give you life eternally.
How hard to believe in this? How hard to believe that there is God? It is not hard. It just takes faith.
We cannot put our life in chance. There must be an assurance.
It is easier to believe that life existed because it was given by God than to believe that life existed because it happened by chance.
It is easier to believe that our body was created in perfection than to believe that it undergoes evolution by chance.
Why still seeking for an answer on how life begin in this world? Why wait billion years when we just more or less 60 yrs? why still seeking and waiting kung saan puwede naman tayong maniwala na lang, it only takes faith.
-
Peter denied Jesus three times.
and yet he died for Jesus
despite persecution and torture which led to his eventual death, Peter never turned away from Jesus, proclaiming He is God and Savior to his last breath
-
My original question for the YEC was this: How can we believe anything scientists say if they can get the age of the earth so very very very wrong?
To expound further, the age of the earth is so ingrained in practically all brances of science (from cosmology, astronomy, geology down to biology)--who pretty much all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years--that if you don't accept that age as true how can you accept anything else they say?
no, it is not ingrained in all aspects of science
do you even know how do they come up with the age?
-
choy,
If someone in your office told you he turned water into wine, rose from the dead, would you believe the guy? Assuming he did, he would need to document the whole thing, have it approved by a governing body as proof.
i admit i will be skeptical. but if someone were to torture them and put them to a slow, painful death and not one of them would recant their statement, then i am more likely to believe. remember, the Apostles didn't just lived and preached and died peacefully. they encountered severe harassment and torture from the Romans. even historians agree that the likelihood of Christianity becoming successful was very, very small, given the steep uphill battle they had againt the resistant Roman empire. and yet for something beyond logic, Christianity not only survived, it thrived and eventually conquered the Roman empire, and then spread to the world.
you have to look at the circumstances on how Christianity came to be to see how real it is
The Bible is not a book of facts. If it was, then it would have been made a textbook. Then there would be no Hindus, Muslims, etc. Even us Christians can't agree amongst ourselves. We have Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox churches and a whole lot more.
The atheists need proof. That we don't have.
the proof is there, you just don't accept it
why are you insistent that the Bible should be transformational beyond human will? everyone has free will. the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted and walked through it, and not a short time later they were worshiping a golden calf. those like you who keep asking for proof, even when proof is there people still doubt. even if God were to fly around the sky like superman, there will still be doubters and disbelievers. do you think that would be enough to convince everybody?
and God wants a relationship with man, a loving relationship. not just believe He is there or that He exists. by showing up, sure, it may convince a few more people, but where's the love? thats why Jesus shunned a lot of people who came to him for miracles. because He knew they were there not to become close to God, but just to use His power for their own benefit.
its like if you win the lottery, suddenly relatives you never knew you have show up and suddenly you were oh so close. is that the relationship you want with them? same with God. He wants a real, loving relationship. giving the proofs you ask for only gives you what you need in your mind to believe, but not what your heart needs to love.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but are you saying that evolution could've started 5 to 10 thousand years ago and completed today?
If so, then yes we should have seen animals change in the last few thousand years. The fact that full speciation takes longer is in fact an argument that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.Have you ever tried to breed, say, a Chihuahua with a Great Dane, sir? Even just mating similar breeds, like a Shih-Tzu and a Maltese won't always produce successful or fertile offspring.
i'm saying that evolution should be a continuing process, and the start and end points should vary from species to species. the fact that we have no conclusive evidence of an observed evolution in the recent past means that macro evolution is non-existent.
That means only a little more and we have to start calling them separate species, not just breeds.
but they're not a different species. they're still dogs. to be a different species, they should be biologically distinct from previous dogs. breeding is just that, breeding. the same way all Chinese have their almond eyes, etc. because in the past the migrants who came to the area have certain traits and since they were cut off from the outside world, certain traits became dominant and shared throughout the population as it grew. eventually, with inter-racial "breeding", the traits are shared again with other human and passed around. blonde hair, which is a recessive trait, would soon be gone
-
We are complex organisms. We don't just evolve. But you can use viruses as samples. They are very much evolving.
and at the end of it all, they are still viruses
and the last time i checked, viruses aren't even considered living things. they're a piece of genetic code wraped in protein. thats it
-
I am right in the first place that Atheist is a religion
In your worldview, sir, you are right about everything.
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
I'm afraid not even the Theists in this thread will take you seriously if you keep saying that.
But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.
Gee. The "total absence of color" is a color. What's next, "0" is "1", sir?
If Atheism is a religion, then albino is a suntan.
A United States Federal Court of Appeals has now ruled ruled that Atheism is, indeed, a religion, under U.S. law. See http://www.google.com/search?&q=atheism+religion+court+rule&btnG=Search for details.
Oh, are you saying jurisprudence equates to truth (and morality) sir? Let's go back to the homosexuality thread, and the marijuana thread, then.
-
i admit i will be skeptical. but if someone were to torture them and put them to a slow, painful death and not one of them would recant their statement, then i am more likely to believe. remember, the Apostles didn't just lived and preached and died peacefully. they encountered severe harassment and torture from the Romans. even historians agree that the likelihood of Christianity becoming successful was very, very small, given the steep uphill battle they had againt the resistant Roman empire. and yet for something beyond logic, Christianity not only survived, it thrived and eventually conquered the Roman empire, and then spread to the world.
you have to look at the circumstances on how Christianity came to be to see how real it is
People died for Heaven's Gate. People died for David Koresh. People died for Jim Jones. Heck, I bet if you tortured Tom Cruise, he'd still declare L. Ron Hubbard God.
I can go on and on. Persecution is not really proof that a religion is "real", what it just shows is faith in that religion. I will not challenge faith because all of us at some point in our lives relied and depended on it. But as I've said before, religion is a construct devised by man in order to try to give a semblance of structure and order about his metaphysical views. That's why, personally, I don't buy that "my religion is better than yours" argument. You guys have consistently explained how omnipotent, all knowing and merciful God is, I find it hard to believe that this same God will just suddenly declare that Christians are the only ones he'll save. Only Man can think that.
-
sayang walang hudyo (jew/"chosen people") o muslim (islam) dito sa forum. sa mga kristiyano, may mga katoliko, may kasapi sa ibang denominasyon na ayaw tukuyin kung ano talaga basta "true christian" daw)
kung nagkataon, imumungkahi ko sana ang hiwalay na thread > WHO WILL BE "SAVED", WHO WILL GO TO HEAVEN" para dun sila magdiskusyon, magdebate, magbangayan ;D
atheism/agnosticism in the philippines ang thread topic pero madalas napupunta ang talakayan sa isyu ng "salvation" ;D
-
atheism/agnosticism in the philippines ang thread topic pero madalas napupunta ang talakayan sa isyu ng "salvation" ;D
I think that's part and parcel of the whole christian/catholic propaganda -- the constant threat of burning in hell in order to keep you on the straight and narrow.
-
I think that's part and parcel of the whole christian/catholic propaganda -- the constant threat of burning in hell in order to keep you on the straight and narrow.
"recruitment"/"conversion" tactic din nila. ang siste- "exclusive" na kami lang ang pupunta sa langit kaya dapat sumapi ka na sa amin. ganun din ang sabi ng ibang relihiyon. kaya walang katapusang bangayan hanggang umabot sa patayan.
there was even a time when its common to hear - "REPENT, THE END IS NEAR" ! palagi sila napaphiya hindi pa rin nagugunaw ang mundo, lampas na ang "end deadline" ;D
-
I think that's part and parcel of the whole christian/catholic propaganda -- the constant threat of burning in hell in order to keep you on the straight and narrow.
LOL
thats the lie that anti-Christians like you propagate
hell is not something to scare you into doing good. its the fact that happens when you choose to leave the relationship you have with God. its like saying, if you play with fire, you will get burned. is that a threat? is that a punishment? or just a fact that playing aroudn with fire can get you burned
-
sayang walang hudyo (jew/"chosen people") o muslim (islam) dito sa forum. sa mga kristiyano, may mga katoliko, may kasapi sa ibang denominasyon na ayaw tukuyin kung ano talaga basta "true christian" daw)
kung nagkataon, imumungkahi ko sana ang hiwalay na thread > WHO WILL BE "SAVED", WHO WILL GO TO HEAVEN" para dun sila magdiskusyon, magdebate, magbangayan ;D
atheism/agnosticism in the philippines ang thread topic pero madalas napupunta ang talakayan sa isyu ng "salvation" ;D
that is my point when i PM you... ayaw ko lang magsimula ng bagong thread regarding that issue.
this thread is between atheist and theist...
medyo na figure out ko lang later na... ;D ;D
-
I think that's part and parcel of the whole christian/catholic propaganda -- the constant threat of burning in hell in order to keep you on the straight and narrow.
the worst part
"outside of churce there is no salvation".
anyway back to the topic between atheist and theist...
How do atheist view morality?
Did atheist follow right and wrong?
I googled and it always lead mo to conclude that atheist when feel it is the right thing to do they just do it.
-
atheist when feel it is the right thing to do they just do it.
Sir, I think you are confusing the idea of someone who's atheist and someone who's amoral.
-
Sir, I think you are confusing the idea of someone who's atheist and someone who's amoral.
Naku para sa ibang tao, pareho-pareho lang iyan--amoral, atheist, agnostic, bakla, tomboy, Muslim, halaman, kulangot, virus.
Lahat sila mapupunta sa impiyerno.
-
How do atheist view morality?
Did atheist follow right and wrong?
I googled and it always lead mo to conclude that atheist when feel it is the right thing to do they just do it.
Again you have mixed up morality with ethics.
-
dpogs,
Honestly, I feel for you. It's really difficult to understand how atheists view things because you're not one of them. And vice versa. But let us not generalize to suit our thinking.
Atheists can be "moral". Ang daming Kristiano na immoral.
And Christians can be free-thinkers as well.
-
<snp>
and God wants a relationship with man, a loving relationship. not just believe He is there or that He exists. by showing up, sure, it may convince a few more people, but where's the love? thats why Jesus shunned a lot of people who came to him for miracles. because He knew they were there not to become close to God, but just to use His power for their own benefit.
its like if you win the lottery, suddenly relatives you never knew you have show up and suddenly you were oh so close. is that the relationship you want with them? same with God. He wants a real, loving relationship. giving the proofs you ask for only gives you what you need in your mind to believe, but not what your heart needs to love.
i agree 102%... contractual faith is not true faith
-
i am just want a clear answer
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?
do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
-
choy,
Firstly, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only son our Lord.
Secondly, all you said are nice and I fully agree.
But proof, there is none.
-
i am just want a clear answer
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?
do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
They follow what the society they are in dictates.
-
no, it is not ingrained in all aspects of science
do you even know how do they come up with the age?
Not ingrained in the sciences? Geology--plate tectonics, carbon dating, geologic record; cosmology--speed of light and distance to stars and galaxies, and how old they are; paleontology--fossil record, like how fossilized sea creatures are found at the tops of mountains; physics--doppler effect, stars and galaxies are all moving away from us.
I'm sure there are many many more examples but I'm just a casual reader/watcher of scientific programs. And practically all the programs I watch on these subjects will inevitably give the age of the earth or the universe as billions of years. No ifs, no buts, not even an explanation, really. It has become a given. There's really no getting away from it when the topic is continental drift or dinosaurs or space or extinction or meteors. And I'm not even mentioning programs on evolution.
Are these programs watchable to you? Or do you just roll your eyes and change the channel?
-
They follow what the society they are in dictates.
Not necessarily, sir. In ethics, particularly normative ethics, there are several ways one can answer, "How ought one act, morally speaking?" such as consequentialism (which includes utilitarianism, welfarism) or deontology (best exemplified by Kant's Categorical Imperative).
-
i am just want a clear answer
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?
do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
Ano bang source ng morality mo? The Church? The Bible? Both?
-
Not necessarily, sir. In ethics, particularly normative ethics, there are several ways one can answer, "How ought one act, morally speaking?" such as consequentialism (which includes utilitarianism, welfarism) or deontology (best exemplified by Kant's Categorical Imperative).
Unfortunately, having mentioned what ethics entails, I bet the next reply would still confuse what ETHICS and MORALITY means. And frankly, any kind of discourse won't progress if we can't even agree on a common frame of reference or definition.
-
alistair,
I'm a software developer, I don't have any idea on all those things you said :) I'm speaking in general.
-
@bumblebee To expound, sir, utilitarianism seeks to maximize 'good' among all sentient beings. An act is moral if it provides the greatest utility for all. I think welfarism is closely related, but tends toward economic welfare instead of a more general 'good' or utility.
On the other hand, there's Egoism, seeks to maximize utility for the self. I suspect that dpogs thinks all atheists subscribe to egoism and act mainly out of self-interest.
Kant's Categorical Imperative roots morality in humanity's rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws, such as the first imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
-
Ano bang source ng morality mo? The Church? The Bible? Both?
Bible. never change through time.
i dont based my morality on what the church says. its always the bible. every church leader has their own conviction which may be differnt from others... but the Bible standard never change through time.
how about atheist... i assume some of them may be still confuse where to base their morality.
-
So you're perfectly fine with this passage?
Deuteronomy 13:7-11
'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of all the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.'
Find it moral?
-
So you're perfectly fine with this passage?
Deuteronomy 13:7-11
'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of all the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.'
Find it moral?
Oh, snap!
-
Before I answer that...
Where do atheist based their morality?
-
Been answered a lot of times already. alistair even expounded on it.
-
Bible. never change through time.
Really? Or only since synods of the 4th century?
how about atheist... i assume some of them may be still confuse where to base their morality.
How about reasoning? Doesn't require faith, revelation, or superstition.
-
Before I answer that...
Where do atheist based their morality?
They answered already and those are valid bases for morality. Your turn to answer Sardaukar's question.
-
nope... still... not clear answer...
there still a disagreement between atheist...
-
there still a disagreement between atheist...
Sir, with all due respect, do you think all atheists belong to a single group and all think the same way?
-
nope... still... not clear answer...
there still a disagreement between atheist...
In much the same way that there are still disagreements between theists, and even between Christians. I'm beginning to smell a cop out here.
-
i'm saying that evolution should be a continuing process, and the start and end points should vary from species to species. the fact that we have no conclusive evidence of an observed evolution in the recent past means that macro evolution is non-existent.
It is a continuing process, sir. And it has been observed, recorded, and can be replayed, sir:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
but they're not a different species. they're still dogs. to be a different species, they should be biologically distinct from previous dogs.
Would you care to define 'biologically distinct', sir? It's hard to argue that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua aren't 'biologically distinct'. Or that the modern, domestic dog isn't distinct from previous dogs, namely, their ancestors/cousins the wolves.
From what I know, the common definition of species is they have to be able to interbreed. With domestic dogs, a lot of them can't interbreed anymore. They also can't interbreed with wolves, their closest relative in the family Canidae. Hence, I contend that we're actually witnessing speciation happening, although it'll take more time before full speciation occurs.
-
Bible. never change through time.
i dont based my morality on what the church says. its always the bible. every church leader has their own conviction which may be differnt from others... but the Bible standard never change through time.
how about atheist... i assume some of them may be still confuse where to base their morality.
neither do the Holy Quran nor the Torah :D
the Holy Bible just gets edited and revised :D
-
choy,
Firstly, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only son our Lord.
Secondly, all you said are nice and I fully agree.
But proof, there is none.
bumblebee, there are plenty of proof. but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way. again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.
-
God either requires faith or there is no proof. If there is proof then faith is not necessary. Which is it?
-
faith doesn't need no proof
a lot of people has the wrong impression that where proof and evidence ends, faith begins
faith actually relies on knowing. there is of course blind faith, but real faith means you know what you are believing in
-
bumblebee, there are plenty of proof. but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way. again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.
If there's (formal) proof, why do we require belief in the proof?
Or do you mean to say evidence, not proof?
faith doesn't need no proof
Sir, are you saying that faith is justified even in the absence of proof?
-
bumblebee, there are plenty of proof. but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way. again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.
I'm not aware of any proof. Show me.
-
quote from SSM thread
imho also, i think the most insensitive person here in earth is the atheist if your concept of disrespect is by saying that ones belief is wrong.
how can a person be insensitive and disrespectful by just not believing in the other's religion?
i wont be offended by a person who doensnt believe in God or who doest share my beliefs and religion. we may differ, even argue but i will respect his views and not ram down his throat what i believe in. The last thing i will ever tell him is "he wont be saved or go to heaven" because he doesnt share my belief.
the issue of salvation is sensitive. by stating that ONLY you will be saved because what you believe in is the only right belief alienates and disrespects others who dont share your belief.
-
A-men.
-
i am just want a clear answer
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?
do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
then why not respect my believe regarding salvation. i just share my believe who will be save. every church has their own belief of salvation, does it mean that they disrespect each belief???
didnt you consider that by just saying there is no God is simply saying that our belief is wrong.
-
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
Sir, was my answer regarding normative ethics unclear to you?
Are you aware that, Theists and atheists alike both use some form of normative ethics to arrive at moral decisions?
do they have some set of standards?
Sir, do you think all atheists are the same?
Do all Theists have some set of standards?
or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
Doesn't everybody have to follow the law?
-
i am just want a clear answer
how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?
paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?
do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.
then why not respect my believe regarding salvation. i just share my believe who will be save. every church has their own belief of salvation, does it mean that they disrespect each belief???
didnt you consider that by just saying there is no God is simply saying that our belief is wrong.
What do you do when the bible contradicts itself? How do you decide what is right and wrong?
-
for example?
-
What I asked previously. It's talking about killing your brother, sister, etc.
-
I have to say though that I am not a Bible expert or an expert of any religion (eventhough I grew up in a highly religious environment and family).
Here is one example of inconsistencies in the Bible:
Exodus 20:14 (King James Version)
14Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Hosea 1:2 (King James Version)
2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
-
I have to say though that I am not a Bible expert or an expert of any religion (eventhough I grew up in a highly religious environment and family).
Here is one example of inconsistencies in the Bible:
Exodus 20:14 (King James Version)
14Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Hosea 1:2 (King James Version)
2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.
-
First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.
Sir, are you saying it's not adultery when you're single?
-
First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.
Another one:
1 Peter 3:15
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
2 Timothy 2:14-16
14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
-
(Coming from here (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=88383.msg1146848#msg1146848)...)
since atheist never view their belief as a religion, their ideas of morality will not be include.
Sir, do you think that since atheists don't believe in God they have no ethics and have no sense of morality?
Or, are you again going to say, atheists can't agree on a single standard of morality, therefore they have no ethics?
Do all Theists agree on their standard of morality? Can you follow your own train of thought to its logical conclusion?
-
It is a continuing process, sir. And it has been observed, recorded, and can be replayed, sir:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
the bacteria acquired a new ability, but is still bacteria. micro-organisms mutate and adopt all the time. but they're still micro-organisms. that still doesn't explain how bacteria eventually became larger organisms
Would you care to define 'biologically distinct', sir? It's hard to argue that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua aren't 'biologically distinct'. Or that the modern, domestic dog isn't distinct from previous dogs, namely, their ancestors/cousins the wolves.
biological distinctness is more than the physical attribute. i have never seen you in person, but i'm pretty sure your physical appearance is distinct from Mahal. does that mean you and Mahal are different species?
From what I know, the common definition of species is they have to be able to interbreed. With domestic dogs, a lot of them can't interbreed anymore. They also can't interbreed with wolves, their closest relative in the family Canidae. Hence, I contend that we're actually witnessing speciation happening, although it'll take more time before full speciation occurs.
nope, inter-species can breed, although its not natural. no animal will do it by instinct but its possible. and that is not a criteria to say they are distinct species
-
the bacteria acquired a new ability, but is still bacteria. micro-organisms mutate and adopt all the time. but they're still micro-organisms. that still doesn't explain how bacteria eventually became larger organisms
Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?
Some organisms formed colonies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219140546.htm). Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria#Relationship_to_chloroplasts).
biological distinctness is more than the physical attribute...
inter-species can breed, although its not natural. and that is not a criteria to say they are distinct species
This is where a lot of confusion arises.
So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?
-
Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?
Some organisms formed colonies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219140546.htm). Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria#Relationship_to_chloroplasts).
This is where a lot of confusion arises.
So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?
THOUGHT being the operative word there
its all in the mind
-
THOUGHT being the operative word there
its all in the mind
I agree sir.
So is Creation 'science'.
At least evolutionary science is consistent with biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and a whole bunch of other -ologies.
-
I agree sir.
So is Creation 'science'.
At least evolutionary science is consistent with biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and a whole bunch of other -ologies.
Creation Science is consistent with one -ology... theology. ;) I guess for some, theology is good enough to replace all of the other -ologies.
Which is kinda funny if you think about it. They can't accept evolution because it's not in the bible but if people get sick, they suddenly go to doctors who, from what I know, never got their education from the bible.
-
Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?
Some organisms formed colonies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219140546.htm). Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria#Relationship_to_chloroplasts).
This is where a lot of confusion arises.
So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?
That's how biologist explain nature... species... subspecies... etc...
but in the Bible there are only two species: human and animals.
and in nature there are only two things that exist: living and non-living, positive or negative, north pole or south pole, action and reaction, right and wrong
and in the Bible there are only two fources that exist: good and evil. God and Satan. if you are not God's then your Satan's .... as simple as that. No need to explain things in different perspective.
This is my belief as a creationist. because when we makes things complicated it only just show how foolish we are.
-
That's how biologist explain nature... species... subspecies... etc...
but in the Bible there are only two species: human and animals.
and in nature there are only two things that exist: living and non-living, positive or negative, north pole or south pole, action and reaction, right and wrong
and in the Bible there are only two fources that exist: good and evil. God and Satan. if you are not God's then your Satan's .... as simple as that. No need to explain things in different perspective.
This is my belief as a creationist. because when we makes things complicated it only just show how foolish we are.
What a very simple view of nature and universe, it's either one or the other. Dunno what to say to this, really especially since all branches of science have been rendered moot and trivial. Makes you wonder about a lot of things, like, do you use electricity at home for example since it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. But then you use a computer to post here, which means you do use modern technology, which is, for all intents and purposes, not in the bible, and therefore, according to your absolute belief in the immutability of the bible, immoral.
-
when it comes to moral issue... i consult the Bible.
Does homosexuality immoral: yes
Does abortioni immoral: yes
Does adultery immoral: yes
Does showing your private parts in public immoral: yes
Does kissing before marriage immora: yes
Does pre-marital sex immoral: yes
How about RH bill: i always believe a safe sex practice (natural way) between two legal couples but not abortion of course. and i disagree taking pills not on its moral issue but on its possible negative effect sa katawan ng misis ko.
Does cleavage immoral: yes
using internet: not
using internet to view pornography: yes
using electricity: not
using electricity to use for our carnal desires: yes
reading magazines: not
reading playboy: yes
but when in doubt dont do it.
universal set of moral standard. there must exist in the whole world, mapa theist man o atheist must follow universal set of moral standard.
question: where do we base our moral standard. suggestion ko: bible
if other religion disagree: why not try culmination of all moral belief ng lahat ng religion and since atheist claimed that they are not a religion... their moral view will not be included.
-
mapa theist man o atheist must follow universal set of moral standard.
since atheist claimed that they are not a religion... their moral view will not be included.
Sir, I'm still trying to take you seriously, but which one is it?
Atheists must follow a moral standard, or
Atheists do not have the capability to be moral?
-
Sir, I'm still trying to take you seriously, but which one is it?
Atheists must follow a moral standard, or
Atheists do not have the capability to be moral?
Atheist and Theist on the first place has different view of morality.
Morality according to Theist (and in most cases - statistically wise - in the philippines - Christians) consult their bible or a standards set by God
Morality according to Atheist has no basis (correct me if I am wrong) of morality. and if you believe that what makes human different from animals is to discern moral and imoral (dito na tayo magkakalabuan).
Atheists must follow a moral standard
Yes. Atheist must folow a set of universal standard, where this set of universal moral standard since (correct me again if i am wrong) atheist as i see them... tend to adjust theri sense of morality in their sorroundings.
Atheists do not have the capability to be moral?
What I believe? God created human in His own image. meaning with sense of God. you are right... we are a rational being... know what is moral and immoral. but as you can see... there is another force in our belief. If there is God... then there is Satan... this so called SAtan blinded humanity so that they cannot clearly see what is differentiate moral to immoral acts. Because of this blindness, we cannot discern what is right and wrong but still we are aware that there is God. That is why Bible was written to remind us what is right and wrong and to set a standard of morality in humankind.
Its not only the atheist sir. its the whole humankind.
-
but in the Bible there are only two species: human and animals.
I see. All the animals that Adam named, and all animals that went on Noah's Ark belong to the same species.
and in nature there are only two things that exist: living and non-living, positive or negative, north pole or south pole, action and reaction, right and wrong
Ok. Two things. Which two things again? "Humans" and "animals", right?
I'm confused.
and in the Bible there are only two fources that exist: good and evil. God and Satan. if you are not God's then your Satan's
Two forces: good and evil.
I guess these forces cause apples to fall from trees, right? It must be good (or is it evil?) for an apple to fall from the tree.
And I guess somehow electromagnetism can be derived from good and evil. The batteries on my cellphone are good, but the photons that show nudie pictures on my laptop are evil. Somehow.
as simple as that. No need to explain things in different perspective.
Gotcha.
This is my belief as a creationist. because when we makes things complicated it only just show how foolish we are.
I honestly admire your simple outlook on life.
Now, does everyone else believe the same things you do?
Should everyone else believe the same things you do?
If believe in Santa Claus, and I say, those who don't believe in Santa Claus are naughty because Santa's not watching them, therefore, we should make a law that says only those who believe in Santa Claus can have presents on Christmas, because it's as simple as that, no need to explain—would you still take me seriously?
-
Morality according to Atheist has no basis (correct me if I am wrong) of morality.
Sir, honestly, there's no need to try and correct you anymore. It's as simple as that. No need to explain from a different perspective. You don't even want to listen.
you are right... we are a rational being... know what is moral and immoral.
I'm sorry, sir, but I'm not sure of that anymore.
I think you're beginning to convince me that some people are completely irrational (QED) and cannot tell right from wrong.
-
If believe in Santa Claus, and I say, those who don't believe in Santa Claus are naughty because Santa's not watching them, therefore, we should make a law that says only those who believe in Santa Claus can have presents on Christmas, because it's as simple as that, no need to explain—would you still take me seriously?
I guess only if you have a Santa Claus bible. Or any sufficiently old Santa book. Well, maybe not even then...
-
Does cleavage immoral: yes
With all due respect, a woman's cleavage is a god-given part of her. Are you telling me all of the women in your church had elective radical mastectomy? That's some strong faith, sir.
-
i mean women purposely displaying their cleavage to public.
-
i mean women purposely displaying their cleavage to public.
So hindi sila pwedeng magswimming? As far as I know, wala pang swimsuit na turtleneck.
-
They can't accept evolution because it's not in the bible but if people get sick, they suddenly go to doctors who, from what I know, never got their education from the bible.
Some religious refuse to bring their sick children to doctors, insisting on prayer or "It's all up to God's will".
-
Meron namang cleavage display na tastefully done.
Indie, meron. Yung officemate ko, ganun yung speedo nya ;D
-
Some religious refuse to bring their sick children to doctors, insisting on prayer or "It's all up to God's will".
Yup, Christian Scientists, who I collectively think are a french fry short of a Happy Meal.
-
Meron namang cleavage display na tastefully done.
Indie, meron. Yung officemate ko, ganun yung speedo nya ;D
Oh, yeah, meron nga. :) Pero bakat pa din yung hulma ng breasts, which, I think is still immoral.
-
So hindi sila pwedeng magswimming? As far as I know, wala pang swimsuit na turtleneck.
Puwede sir, pero kailangan naka burqini (http://www.google.com/search?q=burqini).
-
Meron namang cleavage display na tastefully done.
Sir, personally, I think all cleavage display is tastefully done. ;)
-
Puwede sir, pero kailangan naka burqini (http://www.google.com/search?q=burqini).
Looks like Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity actually have a lot of things in common. :)
-
Sir, personally, I think all cleavage display is tastefully done. ;)
Di naman lahat. Yung ke Madam Auring and the likes, hindi.
-
dpogs,
Have you considered my question already?
So you're perfectly fine with this passage?
Deuteronomy 13:7-11
'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of all the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.'
Find it moral?
-
I agree sir.
So is Creation 'science'.
At least evolutionary science is consistent with biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and a whole bunch of other -ologies.
surprisingly, if you look at the order of creation, its not far off from what evolution and the big bang is proposing. and remember that Genesis was written 4000 years ago
first day, let there be light. big bang
second day, separation of the waters above from the waters below, creation of the heavens, the universe. of course the ancients thought the blue in the sky is the same water as the blue below, but thats according to their 2500BC knowledge. still not far off, you float in space as you float in water
only the third and fourth days are off since the land of the earth came before the stars and the sun
fifth day, all other living things
sixth day, man
you have to admit, for such an ancient civilization to figure out the order thats pretty close to how modern scientists see the order to be. other creation stories aren't as feasible as the one in Genesis
-
only the third and fourth days are off since the land of the earth came before the stars and the sun
But I thought the Bible is infallible?
-
Some religious refuse to bring their sick children to doctors, insisting on prayer or "It's all up to God's will".
I still believe sa katagang "Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa."
If a person prays to God to give him/her knowledge or wisdom to pass the board exam and then dont even try to review. Do you think God will answer his/her prayer?
A man earnestly praying to have a very understanding, kind and loving wife. And then, wala pa rin siyang makitang asawa. Why... the woman na para dapat sa kanya is praying to have a very understanding, kind and loving husband. Lesson: bakit ka hihingi ng asawa na mabait samantalang ikaw hindi mabait, ipagkakaloob ba sa iyo ng Panginoon iyon?
A PDVD member praying na magkaroon siya ng bluray player and then do nothing not even working. God did not taught us to be lazy on the first place.
-
A man earnestly praying to have a very understanding, kind and loving wife. And then, wala pa rin siyang makitang asawa. Why... the woman na para dapat sa kanya is praying to have a very understanding, kind and loving wife.
You just described a religious lesbian sir. ;D
-
oops... typo error... instead of wife... husband... stand corrected. thank you.
-
surprisingly, if you look at the order of creation, its not far off from what evolution and the big bang is proposing. and remember that Genesis was written 4000 years ago
first day, let there be light. big bang
second day, separation of the waters above from the waters below, creation of the heavens, the universe. of course the ancients thought the blue in the sky is the same water as the blue below, but thats according to their 2500BC knowledge. still not far off, you float in space as you float in water
only the third and fourth days are off since the land of the earth came before the stars and the sun
fifth day, all other living things
sixth day, man
Honestly, sir, I get what you're saying and I have to admit that, to some extent I'm inclined to agree.
However, I can't reconcile the Genesis creation account and a young earth or young universe. All the math and physics and astronomy and cosmology I've read point to a Universe and an Earth that's older that 10,000 years old.
All the historical records around the time of Christ (Biblical, Roman, Greek, Chinese) do not point to living dinosaurs walking the earth around that time. Yet, some Creation 'science' (such as the Creationist Museum) insists that Man co-existed with the dinosaurs. We even have some children's coloring books claiming Jesus rode on dinosaurs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/414998399/). This, I find absurd.
you have to admit, for such an ancient civilization to figure out the order thats pretty close to how modern scientists see the order to be. other creation stories aren't as feasible as the one in Genesis
Aliens?
-
Di naman lahat. Yung ke Madam Auring and the likes, hindi.
I humbly stand corrected.
-
dpogs,
Deuteronomy 13:7-11
'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of all the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.'
Find it moral?
Have you considered my question already?
Just read this link: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-deuteronomy-13-6-11.htm
Its like depending your own country. Its like depending yourself from possible death attack.
If you read carefull Deut. 13.
-
Honestly, sir, I get what you're saying and I have to admit that, to some extent I'm inclined to agree.
However, I can't reconcile the Genesis creation account and a young earth or young universe. All the math and physics and astronomy and cosmology I've read point to a Universe and an Earth that's older that 10,000 years old.
All the historical records around the time of Christ (Biblical, Roman, Greek, Chinese) do not point to living dinosaurs walking the earth around that time. Yet, some Creation 'science' (such as the Creationist Museum) insists that Man co-existed with the dinosaurs. We even have some children's coloring books claiming Jesus rode on dinosaurs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/414998399/). This, I find absurd.
Aliens?
well, the official Church stand on this is that they don't subscribe to the Creationist view nor to the Evolutionary view. what they advice believers is that no matter what they believe in how the world came to be, the most important thing is that we believe it all originated from God, and happened by His will.
that is the official stand of the Church
so if you're Catholic, you don't have to believe in Creationism to be in communion with Church beliefs
-
Just read this link: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-deuteronomy-13-6-11.htm
Its like depending your own country. Its like depending yourself from possible death attack.
If you read carefull Deut. 13.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
- Matthew 7:12
So, would you welcome the Catholic Inquisition burning you at the stake after excommunication? After all, if you're willing to kill your brother,
"Then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you."
- Deut 19:19
-
Just read this link: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-deuteronomy-13-6-11.htm
Its like depending your own country. Its like depending yourself from possible death attack.
If you read carefull Deut. 13.
So it really is moral and justifiable.
-
I still believe in death penalty.
If that is the capital punishment back then.... so be it.
But according to Paul... if our life was threatened, our faith was threatened and our life is at stakes.... if there is a possiblity of scape then scape... if not then be ready to defend yourself.
to murder an innocent people is immoral and sin.
-
Glad we don't live in those times anymore or dpogs could have already killed us for what we've been doing here, nay, he would have been morally obligated to kill us.
-
when it comes to moral issue... i consult the Bible.
Does homosexuality immoral: yes
Does abortioni immoral: yes
Does adultery immoral: yes
Does showing your private parts in public immoral: yes
Does kissing before marriage immora: yes
Does pre-marital sex immoral: yes
How about RH bill: i always believe a safe sex practice (natural way) between two legal couples but not abortion of course. and i disagree taking pills not on its moral issue but on its possible negative effect sa katawan ng misis ko.
Does cleavage immoral: yes
using internet: not
using internet to view pornography: yes
using electricity: not
using electricity to use for our carnal desires: yes
reading magazines: not
reading playboy: yes
but when in doubt dont do it.
universal set of moral standard. there must exist in the whole world, mapa theist man o atheist must follow universal set of moral standard.
question: where do we base our moral standard. suggestion ko: bible
if other religion disagree: why not try culmination of all moral belief ng lahat ng religion and since atheist claimed that they are not a religion... their moral view will not be included.
Sir, is masturbation immoral? also pornography? Also kissing before marriage? and looking at cleavage? If that's the case, I fear for all my friends. Mahilig kasi sila sa ganyan eh. yung iba mga taga pinoydvd pa.
-
sa mga napost ko na list...
as an atheist... alin doon sa mga list ko ang immoral para sa inyo.
-
sa mga napost ko na list...
as an atheist... alin doon sa mga list ko ang immoral para sa inyo.
reading playboy: yes
I read a lot of playboy during my college years.
What now? Do I go to hell?
-
I read a lot of playboy during my college years.
What now? Do I go to hell?
and penthouse at my end ;D
if your are a Catholic the confessional box would be a recommended place... then pray hard for forgiveness and see to it we do not do it again ...i hope my sins were forgiven too, after all, my life is in GOD's hands
-
I read a lot of playboy during my college years.
What now? Do I go to hell?
If you're an atheist, then there is no hell to go to.
If you're Sartre, then hell is other people.
-
I read a lot of playboy during my college years.
What now? Do I go to hell?
there is still hope.... a repentant heart and a willingness to turn back from that kind of sin will always be forgiven...
God loves you so much that until now he let you live (since college year) to give you a chance to repent.
-
there is still hope.... a repentant heart and a willingness to turn back from that kind of sin will always be forgiven...
God loves you so much that until now he let you live (since college year) to give you a chance to repent.
Which contradicts what you previously posted that we have already been prejudged.
-
malinaw na malinaw...
but... there still hope.
kahit sa atin... ang isang taong nahusgahan na ng judge ng kamatayan (lethal injection) ay puwede pang maligtas sa tiyak na kamatayan - a president's call. when a president call, ang nahusgahan will decide whether he/she will accept the president's offer to free him.
-
shucks!
Mas marami pang butas ang arguments nito kaysa brief ng lolo ko.
-
toink....di nagets....
ang isang kriminal na nahusgahan ng ating bansa ng kamatayan (nahusgahan na)... ay may natitira pang pag-asa.... - President's pardon.
just like us... nahusgahan na tayo because of our sin... but there still hope.... - Jesus
-
shucks!
Mas marami pang butas ang arguments nito kaysa brief ng lolo ko.
pati brief ng lolo mo pinakikialaman mo ?
-
pati brief ng lolo mo pinakikialaman mo ?
I take care of my aged relatives, including doing their laundry. I hope you are doing the same thing.
-
I take care of my aged relatives, including doing their laundry. I hope you are doing the same thing.
better than yours.. and i do not involve them on forums ..in my book that is respect
-
guys, please :)
-
And we are getting way too personal people.
-
To try and keep the discussion relevant, let me profess some of my views on dpogs' list.
Is homosexuality immoral: No.
Is abortion immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is adultery immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is showing your private parts in public immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is kissing before marriage immoral: No.
Is pre-marital sex immoral: No.
Do you support the RH bill: Yes.
Is displaying a woman's cleavage in public immoral: No.
Let me venture a couple more of my own.
Is being naked immoral? No.
Is being naked around other people in a nudist camp immoral? No.
Is what is legal moral? No.
Is what is illegal immoral? No.
If you think something is not immoral, would you do it? Not necessarily.
-
As comparison, kinulayan ko ng red ang sagot ko.
To try and keep the discussion relevant, let me profess some of my views on dpogs' list.
Is homosexuality immoral: No. (YES)
Is abortion immoral: Yes, if done on purpose. (YES)
Is adultery immoral: Yes, if done on purpose. (YES)
Is showing your private parts in public immoral: Yes, if done on purpose. (YES)
Is kissing before marriage immoral: No. (YES)
Is pre-marital sex immoral: No. (YES)
Do you support the RH bill: Yes. (YES)
Is displaying a woman's cleavage in public immoral: No. (YES)
Let me venture a couple more of my own.
Is being naked immoral? No. (YES) if its in public
Is being naked around other people in a nudist camp immoral? No. (YES)
Is what is legal moral? No. (IT DEPENDES)
Is what is illegal immoral? No. (IT DEPENDS)
If you think something is not immoral, would you do it? Not necessarily. WHEN IN DOUBT DONT
-
To try and keep the discussion relevant, let me profess some of my views on dpogs' list.
Is homosexuality immoral: No.
Is abortion immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is adultery immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is showing your private parts in public immoral: Yes, if done on purpose.
Is kissing before marriage immoral: No.
Is pre-marital sex immoral: No.
Do you support the RH bill: Yes.
Is displaying a woman's cleavage in public immoral: No.
Let me venture a couple more of my own.
Is being naked immoral? No.
Is being naked around other people in a nudist camp immoral? No.
Is what is legal moral? No.
Is what is illegal immoral? No.
If you think something is not immoral, would you do it? Not necessarily.
hhhmmm... you have an idea on what morality is
sin is about doing something on purpose. even in the criminal justice system, intent plays a big part. if you get into a car accident and kill someone, no one can charge you with homicide unless they prove you are acting with negligence that resulted in the death. if you practice enough due diligence and the accident still occured, then you cannot be held liable. same with morality.
there is no abortion that is not intended. all abortions are intended. what is not intended is miscarriage. there is no adultery if its not done on purpose. if one of the parties is unaware of the other's marital status, then how can it be on purpose?
-
hhhmmm... you have an idea on what morality is
Don't we all, or does everybody need someone else to tell us what's right and wrong?
there is no abortion that is not intended. all abortions are intended.
Let's qualify 'intended'. Suppose a pregnant woman is discovered to have a life-threatening cyst or whatever other in her womb. The only way to save her life is to abort the fetus. Otherwise, both mother and child will die. I wouldn't call that 'intended'.
there is no adultery if its not done on purpose.
Except that some people would call victims of rape guilty of 'adultery' (if married) or 'fornication' otherwise and then stone them to death. No, I'm not making this up.
-
hhhmmm... you have an idea on what morality is
sin is about doing something on purpose. even in the criminal justice system, intent plays a big part. if you get into a car accident and kill someone, no one can charge you with homicide unless they prove you are acting with negligence that resulted in the death. if you practice enough due diligence and the accident still occured, then you cannot be held liable. same with morality.
there is no abortion that is not intended. all abortions are intended. what is not intended is miscarriage. there is no adultery if its not done on purpose. if one of the parties is unaware of the other's marital status, then how can it be on purpose?
no, a sin is a sin
unawareness of the gravity of a sin only lessens the gravity. so a mortal sin can become merely a venial sin if you are totally unaware of the gravity of your actions
lack of awareness is different from just outright denying the truth. the same way innocence is different from ignorance
???
-
there is no abortion that is not intended. all abortions are intended. what is not intended is miscarriage.
Actually, abortion and miscarriage are interchangeable terms in medicine. Specifically, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.
-
Don't we all, or does everybody need someone else to tell us what's right and wrong?
Yes. Definitely yes. Somebody told you what is right and wrong.
-
Yes. Definitely yes. Somebody told you what is right and wrong.
Like, Santa Claus?
-
Like, Santa Claus?
and then somebody told you that santa does not exist.
-
and then somebody told you that santa does not exist.
Then that person has no morals.
-
ibig kong sabihin...
a person have no capability at all to discern what is right and wrong.
makikita natin yan sa mga bata...
kaya nga we need to guide them according to truth... not according to what we know.
Itinuro mo po ba sa anak mo na may Santa Claus? Siyempre hindi...
ang bata kung ano makita niya gagawin niya... kaya nga iguiguide natin sa tama. ngayon dito magkakatalo... paano kung ang magulang ang itinuturo masama din.... eto ang reason dyan... hindi rin naturuan ng tama ang magulang na un....
-
makikita natin yan sa mga bata...
Sir, ang sanggol hindi rin marunong mag-lakad. Pero, hindi na 'tin sila kailangan turuan mag-lakad.
Ang bawa't tao may consiyensya. Naniniwala ka man sa Espirito Santo o hindi, ke Muslim o atheist ka, hindi mo masasabing wala kang consiyensya.
"They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right."
- Romans 2:15
Ang pagkakaintindi ko niyan, ay lahat tayo ay ipinanganak na may consiyensiya at kakayahanag mag-isip, sa pamamagitan nitong dalawang nakakapag desisyon tayo tungkol sa moralidad.
Hindi dahil sabi nang pastor o nang pari o nang teacher o nang magulang ko.
Itinuro mo po ba sa anak mo na may Santa Claus? Siyempre hindi...
Kung naninawala talaga ako kay Santa Claus, bakit hindi?
Kung naninawala ako kay Bathala, bakit hindi ko ituturo sa anak ko tungkol kay Bathala?
-
ang sanggol inaalalayan ng caretaker o magulang para hanggat maaari ay hindi masaktan at madapa ng madalas... ganyan din sa run-about stage at hanggang sa paglaki niya... minsan nga humahanap ng gabay kahit na mayroon na siyang sariling pamilya dahil mayroon siyang tiwala sa mabuting mga hangarin ng magulang niya para sa kinabukasan niya at pamilya niya
-
Just to react on nudity:
I love nude beaches. Doon walang imoral, walang discussion ng relihiyon at walang pakialam ang mga tao sa hitsura ng katawan mo.
Wait, let me take it back. You will have an idea of a man's religion when he is naked. LOLs!
-
ang sanggol inaalalayan ng caretaker o magulang para hanggat maaari ay hindi masaktan at madapa ng madalas...
Sir, walang problema sa pag-alalay o sa pag-gabay sa tao (bata man o hindi).
Ang sinasabi ko lang, may mga ilang bagay (katulad nang pag-lalakad) na kahit walang magtuturo sa bata (kahit ma-abandon pa 'yan sa isang isla) ay kusa niyang matututunan.
Maaring hindi pulido o kahanga-hanga ang kanyang paglakad (o ang kanyang moralidad), pero sarili niyang paraan 'yon.
Katulad nang kanyang pananaw (o hindi) sa Diyos, sarili niyang pananaw iyon. Hindi natin puwede pagpilitan na, "Heto, ito ang paniwalaan mo."
Gabayan, oo. Alalayan, oo. Turuan, oo. Isapilitan, hindi.
-
Just to react on nudity:
I love nude beaches. Doon walang imoral, walang discussion ng relihiyon at walang pakialam ang mga tao sa hitsura ng katawan mo.
Wait, let me take it back. You will have an idea of a man's religion when he is naked. LOLs!
sir alistair: I mean morality... moral and immoral (not right and wrong).... but a child must always be guided according to righteousness.
OT lang ng kunti:
NUDITY
It is true that Adam and Eve went without clothes when they were created. However, they were at this time in a state of innocence. Though they were intelligent creatures, they had no more sense of right and wrong than a baby does today. However, as soon as sin entered the world, they were ashamed of their nakedness and sought to cover themselves. From that time until now, God has treated nakedness outside of marriage as a shameful thing.
Several actions concerning nakedness (outside marriage where the bed is undefiled - Hebrews 13:4) are condemned in the Bible:
It is a shame and wrong to uncover your nakedness to others. The priests were warned to wear undergarments so that their nakedness would not be discovered when they went up the steps to the altar in their robes. Their undergarments (linen breeches) were to cover from their loins (waist) to their thighs (Exodus 28:42). When the children of Israel made and worshipped the golden calf, Aaron "made them naked unto their shame" (Exodus 32:25). Isaiah 47:3 speaks of the shame of having your nakedness uncovered.
It is a sin to uncover the nakedness of another. This is seen as leading to other sins (see Leviticus 18:6-18).
It is wrong to look on the nakedness of others. Ham's son was cursed because Ham saw the nakedness of his father and went and talked about it (Genesis 9:22-23). Habakkuk 2:15 speaks of the wickedness of those who get someone drunk in order to "look on their nakedness."
One important point I need to make concerns the biblical definition of nakedness. We sometimes get the idea that nakedness refers only to having no clothing at all. However, this is neither true in the Bible nor in the English dictionary. One of the definitions for "naked" in my English dictionary is "without conventional or usual clothing." Many people do not know that the Bible often calls improper covering of the body nakedness. Most often it refers to the wearing of undergarments in public. This explains the nakedness of Saul (1 Samuel 19:24), of David (2 Samuel 6:14, 20; 1 Chronicles 15:27), of Isaiah (Isaiah 20:2-4), and of Peter (John 21:7). It is interesting that Peter did not want Jesus to see him naked.
We understand this definition in practice as well. If a person had no clothing except for a 6-inch square piece of cloth taped to the middle of their back, we would still consider them to be naked. The Bible teaches that improperly covered bodies are still naked. This is interesting in an age when many outer garments do not cover as much as undergarments did a short time ago.
We do not and cannot have the innocence of children. Therefore, we are not to run around in our nakedness. To do so is shameful and to look on the nakedness of others is sinful. Certainly, in working with young children and in working with the sick and elderly, there are times when caretakers will see their nakedness and there is nothing wicked in this (though proper respect should be given and the eyes should be averted when possible). God also makes an exception for a husband and wife. In fact, this is part of the significance of them being made one flesh. However, to purposely uncover our bodies for others to see or to gaze upon the nakedness of others to satisfy our own prurient interest are both sins in the Bible. This rules out any sort of nudist camp and many other things that are practiced today.
Reagan, David
-
children and adults need a well formed conscience sir alistair... reliable sources are GOD-centered persons around us...
"ipagpilitan" ? i do not know how to imagine that as i am on my 2nd generation parenting yet did not experienced that word...
-
children and adults need a well formed conscience sir alistair... reliable sources are GOD-centered persons around us...
"ipagpilitan" ? i do not know how to imagine that as i am on my 2nd generation parenting yet did not experienced that word...
Kasi di nakita yung development ng conscience.
True, all people have conscience.
But as you grow old, conscience becomes relative, based on your exposure & environment.
The bible talks about the development of a conscience to a point like it is "seared with a hot iron" - insensitive.
And finally - even with conscience, there is no denying that each of us have our own version of twisted conscience. That is part of the normal "DNA" of our personality.
-
tons of thanks sir aHobbit for chiming in for very enlightening inputs... same goes for our buddies' sharing here and on several threads at bigtalk section... surely revitalized my conscience ;)
-
Religion has played a very big role in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, you can distinguish between right and wrong because of your religious upbringing, be it at home or amongst peers. I doubt that you were a noble citizen when you reached puberty simply because you lived by the constitution and kept upto date through the years with all the corresponding amendments.
If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain. ;D
Pardon me for asking this question but who among you, atheists, have children? And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist? Please do not give me that "I want him/her to make up his/her own mind" cr*p, because some of you have used pretty indignant words and phrases to describe conscience and upbringing via the teachings of the bible. If you so strongly believe that there is no God, then you would not want to condemn your son/daughter to follow the religious or false path. We all know that most parents want the best for their kids.
And if in case you let your child decide on his/her own (because free will reigns and that is your motto in life), you would then be favoring his/her welfare which is the inclination that there is a God and that you might be wrong after all.
If you have no children, then do not bother answering. All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.
-
If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain. ;D
Oh, you mean like the Japanese? Or the Chinese?
Or our neighbors, the Thais and the Malaysians? Uhuh. Yup. They sure did badly for countries that didn't get the gift of Christianity.
And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist?
Do you tell your child outright that Santa Claus doesn't exist?
All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.
I think it'd be 'enlightening' (*badumpish*) to talk to children who grew up around Buddhist monks/monasteries.
-
questions for questions. just what i expected. :)
-
Religion has played a very big role in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, you can distinguish between right and wrong because of your religious upbringing, be it at home or amongst peers. I doubt that you were a noble citizen when you reached puberty simply because you lived by the constitution and kept upto date through the years with all the corresponding amendments.
Religion has been a factor in conflicts and atrocities throughout the history of human civilization to this day. Ever heard of the inquisitions and the jihad? Not to mention the rampant coercion, hipocrisy, bigotry, fundamentalism and sectarianism.
If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain. ;D
The Spanish used religion as a form of social control to oppress Filipinos when this country was under their colonial rule. Just look at where it got us now. The Philippines, one of the two predominantly catholic countries in Asia and yet one of the most corrupt.
Pardon me for asking this question but who among you, atheists, have children? And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist? Please do not give me that "I want him/her to make up his/her own mind" cr*p, because some of you have used pretty indignant words and phrases to describe conscience and upbringing via the teachings of the bible. If you so strongly believe that there is no God, then you would not want to condemn your son/daughter to follow the religious or false path. We all know that most parents want the best for their kids.
And if in case you let your child decide on his/her own (because free will reigns and that is your motto in life), you would then be favoring his/her welfare which is the inclination that there is a God and that you might be wrong after all.
If you have no children, then do not bother answering. All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.
There is a world out there and not all people share your world-view.
-
questions for questions. just what i expected. :)
Sir, have you heard of the Socratic method?
-
God = Higher Being.
I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.
Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.
-
God = Higher Being.
I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.
Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.
Atheists do not spend time defending something they do not have. It is ridiculous.
I do not think agnostics would visit this thread as well because they know it is going to be pointless.
-
Atheists do not spend time defending something they do not have. It is ridiculous.
Exactly. But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.
-
Exactly. But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.
hehe..ya thats why I told somebody here before we can argue for 30 pages and we will still not agree with each other ;D. I think you guys are at 24 already :D ;D Anyway this thread, with all the Bible passages just made me read the Bible more and made my faith stronger. Also its good naman to read both sides of it. I'm just a lurker now for this and SSM ;D. These issues or topics are pretty hard on who will come out the winner ;D
-
Exactly. But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.
That goes both ways.
-
So the crux of the matter relating to morality (or immorality) can be sum up ...
that morality (as dictated by ones conscience) in the eyes of an atheist (or the people who do not have clear standards) is basically dependent (just follows the wind of change) on the tolerance of man's conscience ... this varies from place to place ... from culture to culture ... and may even come to a single standard due to the instant access to information (Internet)
However, for a person who exercise a religion that maintains an unchanging standard basis for morality (example a true Christian firm belief in the Bible) ... his morality (as dictated by his conscience) does not change (if it is in fact anchored on the Bible) ... and may in fact be in contradiction with the world's accepted morality.
God did not change the commandments for obedience ... He does not think as man ... He is not as changeable as man ... and make no mistakes here ... what the world considered moral maybe (in God's standard) is immoral ... and the fact is (as the Bible prophesied it), we are coming to an age when evil is branded "good" and that good is now branded "evil".
Thus, for those who believe that God exist, and punishment is exacted to those stiff-necked creatures that continues to defiy God and His lofty command for holiness, you can only nod to the reasonableness of God's action (an execution of His justice) - that you will not even feel pity to these people.
So I say - JUST FILL UP YOUR CUP (of wrath) while you have time - So you will drink it and will have a good dose of what you wanted!
-
that morality (as dictated by ones conscience) in the eyes of an atheist (or the people who do not have clear standards) is basically dependent (just follows the wind of change) on the tolerance of man's conscience ... this varies from place to place ... from culture to culture ... and may even come to a single standard due to the instant access to information (Internet)
Not quite.
Like I keep saying, there are those who would ""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant's categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative))
To simplify, ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
This is neither individually relative, nor culturally relative. It doesn't depend on societal levels of tolerance, either.
A more concrete derivative would go something like, "It is immoral to impose your will upon those of another moral, willful being."
That other moral, willful being could be of any race, creed, sexual orientation. Heck, from a hypothetical perspective it can apply to aliens or sufficiently advanced AI.
In light of the above, it's easy to see how things such as murder, rape, and larger things such as slavery and religious or political oppression can rightfully be called immoral, independently of any faith or doctrine.
No, not all atheists are happy-go-lucky hedonists who'll do whatever they want, but never mind if it gives you a sense of security to think of them that way.
So I say - JUST FILL UP YOUR CUP (of wrath) while you have time - So you will drink it and will have a good dose of what you wanted!
Or, live your life to the fullest and let God's will be done. Worry about your earthly time here (esp. how you treat others), and leave your 'eternal fate' up to God.
-
Not quite.
Like I keep saying, there are those who would ""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant's categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative))
To simplify, ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
This is neither individually relative, nor culturally relative. It doesn't depend on societal levels of tolerance, either.
A more concrete derivative would go something like, "It is immoral to impose your will upon those of another moral, willful being."
That other moral, willful being could be of any race, creed, sexual orientation. Heck, from a hypothetical perspective it can apply to aliens or sufficiently advanced AI.
In light of the above, it's easy to see how things such as murder, rape, and larger things such as slavery and religious or political oppression can rightfully be called immoral, independently of any faith or doctrine.
No, not all atheists are happy-go-lucky hedonists who'll do whatever they want, but never mind if it gives you a sense of security to think of them that way.
Or, live your life to the fullest and let God's will be done. Worry about your earthly time here (esp. how you treat others), and leave your 'eternal fate' up to God.
The judgment whether a thing done by one person to another is moral or not, comes from another person who may have same or different set of moral standards.
Thus, for a muslims, it is perfectly moral to have more than 1 wife. But for the "christian", it is not.
For another muslim, it is okay. For another Christian, it is not.
Thus, if you are in an extreme environment, and your conscience have been trained to consider another moral, it will come to a point that what is immoral becomes moral.
This is not difficult to see, since it already started creeping on smaller issues of morality.
I will not even ask to prove the extent that the "do unto others" thing will still stick, if you are in an environment that such maxim is not exercised.
And me as a Christian is not surprised by this. Conscience, for a "dead" person is by default corrupted. And I will not argue with you either. Pronouncement written in the air, as contrasted to the sure written pronouncement of God's word, will just vanish in the air.
Luke 21:33 - Heaven & Earth shall pass away, but God's word shall remain!
-
Thus, if you are in an extreme environment, and your conscience have been trained to consider another moral, it will come to a point that what is immoral becomes moral.
Am not sure I get what you mean.
Are you saying that all your morals come from training?
And me as a Christian is not surprised by this. Conscience, for a "dead" person is by default corrupted.
Yes, we know. You believe the Bible is the sole authoritative source of revelation, and your interpretation is sacrosanct. All non-believers are damned. You and Fundamentalist Muslims think alike.
-
Am not sure I get what you mean.
Are you saying that all your morals come from training?
sir,
i think ahobbit is refering to your moral.
-
i think ahobbit is refering to your moral.
Then what you're saying about him is wrong. I already said my ethics involves me thinking things through for myself. I don't depend on, "Oh, this is what av_phile1 said" or "This is what our parish priest said."
-
Am not sure I get what you mean.
Are you saying that all your morals come from training?
Yes, we know. You believe the Bible is the sole authoritative source of revelation, and your interpretation is sacrosanct. All non-believers are damned. You and Fundamentalist Muslims think alike.
that all morals espoused by a person can change overtime - depending on where he is brought up! that the accepted morals of man is not absolute - meaning, it can be changed, modified, etc.
Christian and Muslim may think alike, because we have common five books (which is also part of the bible)!
Lastly, let me point out again! As contrasted with Muslims, the bibe says all of us are damned - though some will experience the grace of God! Not because of Christian religion - but because of a relationship that you can have with God!
-
that all morals espoused by a person can change overtime - depending on where he is brought up! that the accepted morals of man is not absolute - meaning, it can be changed, modified, etc.
I agree.
I'd also like to extend that to institutions, notably, the (Roman Catholic) Church. And society in general.
Hence, ethics, or (in simplistic terms) the study of morality.
No matter what your moral standards, you can't have changing ethics. Otherwise, you're really just adopting whatever course of action you find convenient or justifiable at the time.
If your ethics says, "all morality is subjective" then my morality is no better or worse than yours. If your ethics says, "all morality is objective, based on X", then you have to discard all other bases for morality that disagrees with X.
This, IMhO, is where the confusion, and conflict, between the various faiths (religions) stems from, each branding their holy texts and bases for universal morality.
If your ethics says, "As long as if I can do it, you should be entitled to do it, and neither of us is imposing anything on anyone else, then it's ok", well, then that means you and I can pray to our respective deities (or not) in private. Or destroy religious icons (that you rightfully own) in private, if that's what your faith dictates.
By extension, you or I should be able to decide whether we want to use condoms (or not) during sex. Your morals say "Go ahead", fine. A fundamentalist Catholic's morals say, "No, the Pope doesn't want us to" then that's equally fine1.
Or another example, you and I should both be able eat what we want, even if my killer lechon kawali is literally a killer with all the cholesterol and saturated fat2. A Muslim might brand me haraam.
1 If a Catholic schoolgirl says, "I'm on the pill" then you lucky basterd!
2 Vegans would say the pig didn't give its consent. I just say, "Thanks, pig."
-
Oh, you mean like the Japanese? Or the Chinese?
Or our neighbors, the Thais and the Malaysians? Uhuh. Yup. They sure did badly for countries that didn't get the gift of Christianity.
Do you tell your child outright that Santa Claus doesn't exist?
I think it'd be 'enlightening' (*badumpish*) to talk to children who grew up around Buddhist monks/monasteries.
don't forget that there were missionaries sent to these countries even in the past
just look at the list of Catholic Saints who were martyred and where they were martyred
and the Japanese modernized as a result of British influence. the British are Anglicans, which is a branch of Christianity that came from Catholicism after King Henry VIII rejected Vatican leadership of the Church and proclaimed himself as the head of the English (Anglican) Church
-
don't forget that there were missionaries sent to these countries even in the past
and the Japanese modernized as a result of British influence.
Yes, but he was implying that if not for Christian missionaries we'd still be a backward, tribal society living in huts and spearfishing.
I find that a very demeaning view of indigenous Filipinos, and of Malays/Polynesians in general. Which is why I countered—look at the Thais, the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, who remain largely Buddhist, and Malaysia and Indonesia, who remain largely Muslim.
Try telling them to their face, "Look, if not for Christian missionaries you'd still be backward fuedal warring tribes or kingdoms who depend on subsistence farming."
Somehow, we attribute the growth and progress of other countries to their own industriousness and resourcefulness, but we look at ourselves and say, "Oh, we owe everything to foreigners."1
1 And we blame everything on the Spaniards/Americans/Marcos too.
-
Tama. Kaya di na rin natin kelangan mag-ingles. Wala namang kwenta impluwensiya nila sa atin.
Anu sa tingin nila? Indiyo ako dahil di ako marunong mag-ingles? Sila ang matuto ng wika ko!
And to answer your question about Santa Claus: Yes, I believe in Santa Claus! That ol' fat bast*rd makes my Christmas a little more cheery. Although I've never seen him, because my mama says he only visits houses with chimneys. So tough luck. ;D
-
Yes, but he was implying that if not for Christian missionaries we'd still be a backward, tribal society living in huts and spearfishing.
I find that a very demeaning view of indigenous Filipinos, and of Malays/Polynesians in general. Which is why I countered—look at the Thais, the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, who remain largely Buddhist, and Malaysia and Indonesia, who remain largely Muslim.
Try telling them to their face, "Look, if not for Christian missionaries you'd still be backward fuedal warring tribes or kingdoms who depend on subsistence farming."
Somehow, we attribute the growth and progress of other countries to their own industriousness and resourcefulness, but we look at ourselves and say, "Oh, we owe everything to foreigners."1
1 And we blame everything on the Spaniards/Americans/Marcos too.
i agree with the gist of that argument, albeit it should be worded better
modern day moral standards are a result of the morality of Christians. uplifting the lives of the poor and needy are teaching by Jesus. before his time, the poor and needy are outcasts, left to fend for their own and die in the wilderness, they were not accepted into society.
i wouldn't go to say that Industrialization is a result of Christianity, but today's world moral standards are. and it has helped our society a lot
-
Tama. Kaya di na rin natin kelangan mag-ingles. Wala namang kwenta impluwensiya nila sa atin.
Anu sa tingin nila? Indiyo ako dahil di ako marunong mag-ingles? Sila ang matuto ng wika ko!
And to answer your question about Santa Claus: Yes, I believe in Santa Claus! That ol' fat bast*rd makes my Christmas a little more cheery. Although I've never seen him, because my mama says he only visits houses with chimneys. So tough luck. ;D
Santa Claus is actually a real person. except that somewhere in the last 150 years or so, he's been transformed into this mythical elf that can fit into people's chimneys and bring gifts. he was actually a generous Catholic Bishop from what is today Turkey
-
Actually, abortion and miscarriage are interchangeable terms in medicine. Specifically, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.
its all semantics
we all know that in today's society, the word abortion is purely used to refer to the deliberate and intentional termination of a pregnancy by unnaturally removing the fetus from the womb
-
Religion has been a factor in conflicts and atrocities throughout the history of human civilization to this day. Ever heard of the inquisitions and the jihad? Not to mention the rampant coercion, hipocrisy, bigotry, fundamentalism and sectarianism.
for everything you blame on religion, there are other countless acts done by non-religious reasons. i wonder why the anti-religion people never bring those up? biased views of course
how many wars and attrocities have been done not in the name of religion? Hitler's genocide was because of race, same case for why the Japanese tried to conquer Asia (Asia for the Asians). you get stuck up on the Inquisition which killed far less people than those that have died in Iraq in the last 20 years because of the two wars there. and yet play Inquisition as a greater evil than Economics, which was the driver of the war on Iraq (to be more specific, oil).
The Spanish used religion as a form of social control to oppress Filipinos when this country was under their colonial rule. Just look at where it got us now. The Philippines, one of the two predominantly catholic countries in Asia and yet one of the most corrupt.
i wonder where did you get that? the Spanish used race, not religion. everyone was Catholics, but your place in society was determined not by faith but by race. that is why you have the Insulares (pure spanish blood born in Spain), peninsulares (born of pure spanish parents in the Philippines or other colonies), the mestizos (half spanish, half other race) and the indios (puro Filipinos)
Catholicism isn't the reason why the Philippines is corrupt. Indonesia is more corrupt than the Philippines yet they're Muslim. you're trying to reach to a conclusion to justify religion hate, and yet not look at the entire picture without any bias to find the truth
There is a world out there and not all people share your world-view.
of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but not just because you have an opinion means you are correct. having the right to an opinion can never replace right from wrong
-
God = Higher Being.
I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.
Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.
everyone has a god. the god doesn't have to be called Jesus or Allah or Vishnu or Ra. sometimes someone's god is knowledge or power or money or even sex. we all follow somebody or something which we put our life in servitude to
most of those who call themselves atheists unkowingly are the worshipers of the pagan god of knowledge. because they believe and follow only what science has to offer. by placing a higher premium on science than on anything else on earth make science your god.
you don't have to bow down and pray to something to make it your god. if in your heart you put that thing higher than anything else, you make that object your god
-
modern day moral standards are a result of the morality of Christians.
We can't deny the influence of Christianity on modern social norms, but we also can't attribute everything to Christianity.
Prior to Christianity the Romans already had firm concepts of law, citizenship, and civil rights.
Then there's the Age of Reason, where epistemology and empiricism were systematized, and where, it can be argued, a lot of 'Victorian-era' Christian morals were slowly challenged, giving way to modern sensibilities. For example, the Roman Catholic church kept a tight reign on religious expression, until the Enlightenment where freedom of individual worship gained ground in Europe and America.
uplifting the lives of the poor and needy are teaching by Jesus.
Also of the Buddha, and practiced by Hindus—both of which pre-dated Christianity.
-
We can't deny the influence of Christianity on modern social norms, but we also can't attribute everything to Christianity.
Prior to Christianity the Romans already had firm concepts of law, citizenship, and civil rights.
yes but don't think that the Roman Civil Rights compares to the modern Civil Rights we enjoy
i'm not saying Civil Rights is a Christian invention, but the standard of today's Civil Rights are nothing compared to those of the Romans, at least for the Western World and those they influenced. there are still some moral standards which were not influenced greatly by Christianity
a good example in the bible itself about the inequality of Roman Civil Rights is that Paul was granted a trial and then executed by the less painful death of beheading, because he was a Roman Citizen. Peter was not, he was a Jew. so he didn't get a trial and he was put to death slowly and painfully via crucifixion.
today, Western Civil Rights would place equal treatment for a local as well as a foreigner
Then there's the Age of Reason, where epistemology and empiricism were systematized, and where, it can be argued, a lot of 'Victorian-era' Christian morals were slowly challenged, giving way to modern sensibilities.
can you cite examples?
For example, the Roman Catholic church kept a tight reign on religious expression, until the Enlightenment where freedom of individual worship gained ground in Europe and America.
Also of the Buddha, and practiced by Hindus—both of which pre-dated Christianity.
the Church never put a tight rein on religious expression more than it is doing so today. the Church of course had to fight Heresy which was constantly being introduced from the time of the Apostles until today. of course the Church has its duty to preserve its teachings. i think a lot of people mistinterpret this as being a bad thing. its like saying, Jesus taught 1+1=2, and then here comes someone who says 1+1 could be 3. why shouldn't we try and supress that?
-
for everything you blame on religion, there are other countless acts done by non-religious reasons. i wonder why the anti-religion people never bring those up? biased views of course
Religious issues I brought up were in response to Hexagram's generalization that Religion = Good so everybody's gotta have it. I was not simply religion bashing. The point is, bias or no bias, as with everything else in this world, there are black, white and gray areas.
how many wars and attrocities have been done not in the name of religion? Hitler's genocide was because of race, same case for why the Japanese tried to conquer Asia (Asia for the Asians). you get stuck up on the Inquisition which killed far less people than those that have died in Iraq in the last 20 years because of the two wars there. and yet play Inquisition as a greater evil than Economics, which was the driver of the war on Iraq (to be more specific, oil).
You failed to mention that besides the "economically-motivated global war on terror" many of the casualties and atrocities done in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world are due to socio-political and religiously motivated acts of terrorism.
adolf hitler was raised a roman catholic and spoke positively about German christian heritage as nazi propaganda. Based on hitler's book, Mein Kampf, his anti-semitism was, in part, religiously motivated.
The inquisitions, as insignificant as you put it in numbers, still involved persecution and execution of human beings by an organized religion. I am well aware that the rc has evolved since that time, but the point is, religion can't be good all the time.
i wonder where did you get that? the Spanish used race, not religion. everyone was Catholics, but your place in society was determined not by faith but by race. that is why you have the Insulares (pure spanish blood born in Spain), peninsulares (born of pure spanish parents in the Philippines or other colonies), the mestizos (half spanish, half other race) and the indios (puro Filipinos)
Try reading Jose Rizal's most famous works for starters.
As you put it, race defined your status in the society but besides the spanish authorities and their native collaborators, corrupt spanish friars and the church had a hand in keeping the indios in line.
Catholicism isn't the reason why the Philippines is corrupt. Indonesia is more corrupt than the Philippines yet they're Muslim. you're trying to reach to a conclusion to justify religion hate, and yet not look at the entire picture without any bias to find the truth
I know it isn't catholicism fault but isn't it the church's self appointed job to give moral guidance to its followers to "do the right thing"? From the looks of things, they're not very effective. The same can be said for islam and Indonesia, as the country with the world's largest population of muslims.
Singapore, a multi-religious nation which is an example of religious tolerance and Japan, being largely secular have very disciplined populations and very low crime rates. I wonder if religion had something to do with it or was it something else?
of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but not just because you have an opinion means you are correct. having the right to an opinion can never replace right from wrong
I'll have to agree with you on that.......but sometimes right and wrong can vary from place to place and culture to culture. One can try learn and understand why or just impose their beliefs or opinions.
-
Religious issues I brought up were in response to Hexagram's generalization that Religion = Good. I was not simply religious bashing. The point is, as with everything else in this world, there are black, white and gray areas.
well, religion if based on the right one, is good. that is why there is an emphasis in the Bible to praise and believe the true and living God, as opposed to the idols who are false gods
of course now there are hereseys where people are led to believe they are praising the true God but the heresey puts them in error
that is why correct teaching is also important
i guess what i'm trying to say here is, separate God from the human acts. nowhere in the history of the Church did Jesus command his Apostles to conquer nations. and yet for some reason, Spain decided that they want to conquer the world for religion's sake. so who's in error here? is it religion? or is it Spain's own political ambission? if you look at the religion itself, it says nothing about conquering other countries and forcing the faith on other people. but Spain did it anyway. so is it religion's fault?
You failed to mention that besides the "economically-motivated global war on terror" many of the casualties and atrocities done in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world are due to socio-political and religiously motivated acts of terrorism.
i didn't fail to mention it, i omitted it intentionally. i was making a point that there are other reasons to mass murders other than religions. if i mentioned it, i just defeated my own point. i didn't mention it because i was trying to hide it, just because it wasn't the point i was trying to make
adolf hitler was raised a roman catholic and spoke positively about German christian heritage as propaganda. Based on hitler's book, Mein Kampf, his anti-semitism was, in part, religiously motivated.
thats really a stretch. Hitler believed in Aryanism, that they were a superior race. religion was just one of the tools Hitler used to convinced the Germans to side with him, but it was never the reason he wanted to exterminate the Jews and the blacks. in fact he persecuted a lot of Catholics during his time. actually, while Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother, he wasn't much of a Catholic himself. so religion was never his motivation for his genocide
The inquisitions, as insignificant as you put it in numbers, still involved persecution and execution of human beings by an organized religion. I am well aware that the rc has evolved since that time, but the point is, religion can't be good all the time.
actually, the Inquisition had good intentions, to fight Heresy
most of the abuses were done outside the Church and were mostly politically motivated. this is another example of something the Church trying to do something noble, and someone taking it and turning it for their own agenda
the Spanish Inquisition is the most notorious of this. its mostly politically motivated, in the guise of a religious order
Try reading Jose Rizal's most famous works for starters.
Rizal is a Free Mason and a staunch anti-Catholic. many experts now agree that Rizal exaggerated the abuses of the clergy during his time. yes, there were abuses, but not as widespread as you would think. in fact, his inspiration for Padre Damaso was a local clergy who he personally came in conflict with.
As you put it, race defined your status in the society but the corrupt spanish friars and the church had a hand in keeping the indios in line.
I know it isn't catholicism fault but isn't it the church's self appointed job to give moral guidance to its followers to "do the right thing"? From the looks of things, they're not very effective. The same can be said for Indonesia, as the country with the world's largest population of muslims.
that is why Jesus said, listen to the priests and follow what they teach, but don't do what they do. because they're good at teaching the right things but bad at actually practicing them
Singapore, a multi-religious nation which is an example of religious tolerance and Japan, being a largely secular have very disciplined populations and very low crime rates. I wonder why?
i wouldn't say Singapore is very tolerant of religion
i was there 'bout 8 years ago when religious headwear became an issue in public schools, and Singapore decided to ban all religious headwear in public schools
Singapore is successful not because of their religious policies, they're successful because their an authoritarian state done right. meaning they are authoritarian, but the leaders care about the success of the country. unlike most authoritarian states where the leader only cares about his wealth and staying in power forever
I'll have to agree with you on that.......but sometimes right and wrong can vary from place to place and culture to culture. One can try learn and understand why or just impose their beliefs or opinions.
that is why its important to have a moral anchor thats universal and unchanging with an authority above all else. that is God
-
well, religion if based on the right one, is good. that is why there is an emphasis in the Bible to praise and believe the true and living God, as opposed to the idols who are false gods
of course now there are hereseys where people are led to believe they are praising the true God but the heresey puts them in error
that is why correct teaching is also important
i guess what i'm trying to say here is, separate God from the human acts. nowhere in the history of the Church did Jesus command his Apostles to conquer nations. and yet for some reason, Spain decided that they want to conquer the world for religion's sake. so who's in error here? is it religion? or is it Spain's own political ambission? if you look at the religion itself, it says nothing about conquering other countries and forcing the faith on other people. but Spain did it anyway. so is it religion's fault?
As you said, religions teachings can have many interpretations. That explains secularism and extremism. In the end, there are good or bad human acts following or motivated by religion which is created by man for their goals and ambitions in the first place. It's not religion's fault. It is the people who created it, are behind it and those who follow its doctrines.
i didn't fail to mention it, i omitted it intentionally. i was making a point that there are other reasons to mass murders other than religions. if i mentioned it, i just defeated my own point. i didn't mention it because i was trying to hide it, just because it wasn't the point i was trying to make
Funny, i was making a similar point earlier. There are always two sides to any coin.
one of the tools Hitler used to convinced the Germans to side with him, but it was never the reason he wanted to exterminate the Jews and the blacks.
None the less, religion was still used as a tool. In their minds, the ends justifies the means.
in fact he persecuted a lot of Catholics during his time. actually, while Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother, he wasn't much of a Catholic himself.
hitler persecuted a lot of people including atheists.
so religion was never his motivation for his genocide
But hitler said so in his book and in his speeches.
Hitler professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews. In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."
--Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.2277/0521823714, ISBN 0521823714
Rizal is a Free Mason and a staunch anti-Catholic. many experts now agree that Rizal exaggerated the abuses of the clergy during his time. yes, there were abuses, but not as widespread as you would think. in fact, his inspiration for Padre Damaso was a local clergy who he personally came in conflict with.
But he did provide a snapshot of the situation of the time. The friars were, in fact, figures of authority in the colony.
that is why Jesus said, listen to the priests and follow what they teach, but don't do what they do. because they're good at teaching the right things but bad at actually practicing them
For jesus to say something like that is cool because he's actually encouraging people question authority and not to follow blindly. I think jesus was a great example to christians and non christians alike.
i wouldn't say Singapore is very tolerant of religion
i was there 'bout 8 years ago when religious headwear became an issue in public schools, and Singapore decided to ban all religious headwear in public schools
Singapore is successful not because of their religious policies, they're successful because their an authoritarian state done right. meaning they are authoritarian, but the leaders care about the success of the country. unlike most authoritarian states where the leader only cares about his wealth and staying in power forever
In the context of religious diversity and coexistence, yes there is tolerance. Whatever they're doing over there seems to have put their country in a better state than ours.
that is why its important to have a moral anchor thats universal and unchanging with an authority above all else. that is God
That would be nice but not so nice when the belief and authority is imposed on others. Goodness isn't exclusive.
-
As you said, religions teachings can have many interpretations. That explains secularism and extremism. In the end, there are good or bad human acts following or motivated by religion which is created by man for their goals and ambitions in the first place. It's not religion's fault. It is the people who created it, are behind it and those who follow its doctrines.
that is why its important to listen to people in authority
the problem we have today with the protestants is that the authority of the Church is lost. everyone's their own bible expert
you always say what evil religion does to the world but have complete disregard for those who act beyond human norm to show compassion and love as shown by Jesus Christ. if not for religion, we wouldn't have the likes of Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Mercy who perform selfless acts of compassion to many poor people around the world.
if not for religion, you will not have the big and small charities that support nations down to small neighborhoods, as being done by the Catholic Church today
to look at only one side of the argument presents a biased viewpoint. you blame religion for many wrongdoings in the world but fail to look at those who carry the true teachings faithfully, and how positively they have impacted the world
Funny, i was making a similar point earlier. There are always two sides to any coin.
None the less, religion was still used as a tool. In their minds, the ends justifies the means.
that is quite a narrow minded conclusion to the issue
Hitler never proclaimed religion in any way. in fact, all evidence leads that he despised Catholicism. to blame religion for Hitler's actions is just simply illogical, as it had nothing to do with what Hitler has done.
there are many good things in the world that has been abused by people. should we do away with those things too?
should we abolish government because a lot of wars have been fought in the name of the nation?
hitler persecuted a lot of people including atheists.
But hitler said so in his book and in his speeches.
--Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.2277/0521823714, ISBN 0521823714
like i said, Hitler's issue is race, not religion. and of course, all those who would oppose him.
But he did provide a snapshot of the situation of the time. The friars were, in fact, figures of authority in the colony.
i don't know how unbiased that snapshot in time is. if you look around the world today, there are people who paint America as an evil empire. while there are some who looks at it as a bastion of freedom. if someone 100 years from now would read a book from one side, then his opinion will form on that. Rizal's snapshot is heavily biased from his point of view. given that he's a Freemason and it was a time when Freemasons were actively anti-Catholic, plus he has had his own disagreement with a friar.
plus there's no evidence that the priests ran the locales. they certainly have some influence, but governing the country still fell on those appointed by the throne of Spain. not the Church
For jesus to say something like that is cool because he's actually encouraging people question authority and not to follow blindly. I think jesus was a great example to christians and non christians alike.
oh no, Jesus never told people to question the authority of the elders. he in fact validated that they are knowledgable of the teachings handed down by the prophets. the emphasis of Jesus was that the teachings came from God via the prophets, therefore they are good teachings, follow them. these people who teach you, they are not good examples of these teachings. therefore follow the teachings but not the teacher.
Jesus never usurped authority. He was always about people being submissive to the authority over them, and this includes God. training yourself to be submissive to authorities on earth, even if abusive, will teach you how to be submissive to God's authority. it would be foolish to say that one can be submissive to God because He is good, and question all other authority. if one cannot respect authority now, one will never respect anyone's authority.
In the context of religious diversity and coexistence, yes there is tolerance. Whatever they're doing over there seems to have put their country in a better state than ours.
That would be nice but not so nice when the belief and authority is imposed on others. Goodness isn't exclusive.
goodness has to come from God. like i said, if not for God, how do we tell whats good or not?
-
that is why its important to listen to people in authority
the problem we have today with the protestants is that the authority of the Church is lost. everyone's their own bible expert
you always say what evil religion does to the world but have complete disregard for those who act beyond human norm to show compassion and love as shown by Jesus Christ. if not for religion, we wouldn't have the likes of Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Mercy who perform selfless acts of compassion to many poor people around the world.
if not for religion, you will not have the big and small charities that support nations down to small neighborhoods, as being done by the Catholic Church today
to look at only one side of the argument presents a biased viewpoint. you blame religion for many wrongdoings in the world but fail to look at those who carry the true teachings faithfully, and how positively they have impacted the world
I'm not the only one here with bias. I have already made my point and I'll say it again. There are always two sides to any coin. One side has been presented by one and the other side by the other party.
There is a dark side to everything, even in religion. Initially, it was not meant to highlight but to inform in the face of ignorance. Why the need to hide it?
that is quite a narrow minded conclusion to the issue
Hitler never proclaimed religion in any way. in fact, all evidence leads that he despised Catholicism. to blame religion for Hitler's actions is just simply illogical, as it had nothing to do with what Hitler has done.
there are many good things in the world that has been abused by people. should we do away with those things too?
should we abolish government because a lot of wars have been fought in the name of the nation?
Hay...taken out of context again.....you said it yourself. there are many good(or bad) things in the world that has been abused by people.
and that includes religion. I think that was what I was saying before.
Some ultra-religious people are usually the ones who come up with narrow-minded conclusions...like the one at the end of the last post.
like i said, Hitler's issue is race, not religion. and of course, all those who would oppose him.
That's what you say. I think you failed to read my initial statement that hitler's antisemitism was in part, religiously motivated. I'm very well aware of the nazi party's ideologies as a whole. A fact is a fact. There's proof that religion was part of it. I don't think your bias would allow you to look for and accept it though.
i don't know how unbiased that snapshot in time is. if you look around the world today, there are people who paint America as an evil empire. while there are some who looks at it as a bastion of freedom. if someone 100 years from now would read a book from one side, then his opinion will form on that. Rizal's snapshot is heavily biased from his point of view. given that he's a Freemason and it was a time when Freemasons were actively anti-Catholic, plus he has had his own disagreement with a friar.
So much for this national hero. Turns out his literature that inspired Filipinos to revolt against spanish authorities peacefully or otherwise and actually got him executed was full of biased BS just because its anti-catholic. Of course it was biased. He was a non-violent revolutionary and a reformist. He was biased about a lot of things that were happening at the time. It may be one-sided but its still a snapshot from a viewpoint. Take it as you will.
While it may seem like I'm putting rizal on a high pedestal, I'm very well aware that he was also a man of many contradictions.
plus there's no evidence that the priests ran the locales. they certainly have some influence, but governing the country still fell on those appointed by the throne of Spain. not the Church
Hmmm influence.....I wonder who they influenced? Maybe that's why they were seen as figures of authority. I observe this to this day with the priests, CBCP, INC, Shaddai leadership and all. Influence being the operative word.
goodness has to come from God. like i said, if not for God, how do we tell whats good or not?
Okay...If that's what you believe in.
-
I'm not the only one here with bias. I have already made my point and I'll say it again. There are always two sides to any coin. One side has been presented by one and the other side by the other party.
you're right. i must apologize that i'm biased to the truth
There is a dark side to everything, even in religion. Initially, it was not meant to highlight but to inform in the face of ignorance. Why the need to hide it?
no, there are things that are inherently good. how can the teachings of Christ be of any evil? the problem is that people make their own personal interpretations of what the teachings are and this results into evil. is it the faulf of Christ or His Church that someone twisted the facts for their own gain? the blame must rest on the person who actually committed the crime? its like blaming the person who made knives for the murders that resulted from stabbings with his knives. he was only making tools for slicing meat, not killing people. the blame must rest on the one who's guilty
Hay...taken out of context again.....you said it yourself. and that includes religion. I think that was what I was saying before.
Some ultra-religious people are usually the ones who come up with narrow-minded conclusions...like the one at the end of the last post.
people only consider something narrowminded if it doesn't include their own opinion, which in itself is narrowmindedness
That's what you say. I think you failed to read my initial statement that hitler's antisemitism was in part, religiously motivated. I'm very well aware of the nazi party's ideologies as a whole. A fact is a fact. There's proof that religion was part of it. I don't think your bias would allow you to look for and accept it though.
and i'm telling you, Hitler was never motivated by religion at all. not even 0.00000000001%. if he used religion to convince other people, then its just a tool for him to gain influence, but it was never his motivation to perform what he did. you see the difference and what motivation means?
So much for this national hero. Turns out his literature that inspired Filipinos to revolt against spanish authorities peacefully or otherwise and actually got him executed was full of biased BS just because its anti-catholic. Of course it was biased. He was a non-violent revolutionary and a reformist. He was biased about a lot of things that were happening at the time. It may be one-sided but its still a snapshot from a viewpoint. Take it as you will.
i've always believed that Bonifacio is supposed to be the National Hero. because he actually fought for something.
funny but Rizal never really wanted to remove spanish rule. he wanted the Philippines to become a full province of Spain, thus every Filipino will be granted Spanish citizenship and thus be treated equals with all other Spaniards. it was Bonifacio and the KKK that actually fought for freedom.
While it may seem like I'm putting rizal on a high pedestal, I'm very well aware that he was also a man of many contradictions.
Hmmm influence.....I wonder who they influenced? Maybe that's why they were seen as figures of authority. I observe this to this day with the priests, CBCP, INC, Shaddai leadership and all. Influence being the operative word.
Okay...If that's what you believe in.
well, if they are as influencial the way that you are saying they are, then why are we even having this debate? all issues should have been a done deal from the beginning
in fact, the INC has a larger influence on the politicians through their vaunted bloc voting, than the Catholic Church ever has. if the INC would ask presidential candidates to repeal or block the RH bill in exchange for a "guaranteed" 4-5M votes, its done, just like that
-
you're right. i must apologize that i'm biased to the truth
Yup. You only know one of the many truths, half-truths and whole lies ;D in this world we share with many others.
no, there are things that are inherently good. how can the teachings of Christ be of any evil? the problem is that people make their own personal interpretations of what the teachings are and this results into evil. is it the faulf of Christ or His Church that someone twisted the facts for their own gain? the blame must rest on the person who actually committed the crime? its like blaming the person who made knives for the murders that resulted from stabbings with his knives. he was only making tools for slicing meat, not killing people. the blame must rest on the one who's guilty
I never generalized that religion is totally evil if that's the impression you got. My point remains.
people only consider something narrowminded if it doesn't include their own opinion, which in itself is narrowmindedness
To say one side has it all seems like a bit dismissive of all others. Don't see open mindedness in that.
and i'm telling you, Hitler was never motivated by religion at all. not even 0.00000000001%. if he used religion to convince other people, then its just a tool for him to gain influence, but it was never his motivation to perform what he did. you see the difference and what motivation means?
I'd appreciate it if you showed some proof of your claims.
I sense a flat out denial of the connection because it wouldn't look good™ to have anything to do with hitler and/or his party.
i've always believed that Bonifacio is supposed to be the National Hero. because he actually fought for something.
funny but Rizal never really wanted to remove spanish rule. he wanted the Philippines to become a full province of Spain, thus every Filipino will be granted Spanish citizenship and thus be treated equals with all other Spaniards. it was Bonifacio and the KKK that actually fought for freedom.
I agree with you on Bonifacio. Even in the current situation of the Philippines, actions may very well be stronger than words.
As I've said before, Rizal was a man of many contradictions. Funny how you are able to question Philippine history and other things so easily and not the roman catholic church. Oh I just remembered. It has something to do with faith. ::)
well, if they are as influencial the way that you are saying they are, then why are we even having this debate? all issues should have been a done deal from the beginning
in fact, the INC has a larger influence on the politicians through their vaunted bloc voting, than the Catholic Church ever has. if the INC would ask presidential candidates to repeal or block the RH bill in exchange for a "guaranteed" 4-5M votes, its done, just like that
Ok I get your truth™. The holy roman catholic church = the epitome of goodness without fault whatsoever, everyone else is less than perfect. I just wonder why so many politicians are still playing safe with the RH bill? cbcp perhaps? Maybe not. Maybe its because there are so many devout catholics in the Philippine congress & senate. ::)
-
Yup. You only know one of the many truths, half-truths and whole lies ;D in this world we share with many others.
truths are universal. no truth can make another truth untrue, then what has been rendered as untrue is not truth
I never generalized that religion is totally evil if that's the impression you got. My point remains.
religion cannot be evil because evil is a result of actions and decisions. a religion cannot act nor decide, humans can
To say one side has it all seems like a bit dismissive of all others. Don't see open mindedness in that.
we can't all be correct. thats a fact. are we gonig to accomodate people who believe 1+1=3 just for the sake of political correctness and/or inclusionism? the earth cannot be round and flat at the same time
I'd appreciate it if you showed some proof of your claims.
i've already stated my proof. that Hitler's motivation si Aryanism. he believes the white europeans are the superior race and therefore all other races are inferior and must be eliminated. he started with Jews but everyone knows he hates Blacks as well. i don't see an ounce of religious significance in hating Blacks
I sense a flat out denial of the connection because it wouldn't look good™ to have anything to do with hitler and/or his party.
i'm just stating the plain facts. if religion was his motivation, he should have targetted other non-Catholics as well, but he didn't. and it is universal knowledge that it was Aryanism that motivated him
I agree with you on Bonifacio. Even in the current situation of the Philippines, actions may very well be stronger than words.
i've heard before, not sure if its true but its plausible i guess, that Rizal was chosen by the Americans to be the national hero because they want someone who's non-violent for the Filipinos to look up to. allowing Bonifacio to become the national hero would only complicate their occupation plans futher
of course, the other issue could be because our first president had his little tiff with Bonifacio and viewed him as a traitor later on and had him executed for treason. which is why Bonifacio wasn't viewed as fondly in the first few years after the Revolution. if he was to become the National Hero, it would make Aguinaldo look bad for having him killed in the first place. Rizal then was a logical safe choice
As I've said before, Rizal was a man of many contradictions. Funny how you are able to question Philippine history and other things so easily and not the roman catholic church. Oh I just remembered. It has something to do with faith. ::)
no, i've questioned my faith many times in the past. i've gone through my time even as an agnostic. its this questioning that has led me to where i am now. my faith is not blind, i believe because of what i know and have experienced. to those who say faith is blind is ignorant of the truth
Ok I get your truth™. The holy roman catholic church = the epitome of goodness without fault whatsoever, everyone else is less than perfect. I just wonder why so many politicians are still playing safe with the RH bill? cbcp perhaps? Maybe not. Maybe its because there are so many devout catholics in the Philippine congress & senate. ::)
the Church in itself is good and holds the truth
but every human is a sinner and is prone to temptation. no one becomes perfect just because of a position they occupy. people expect the pope or the priests to be perfect, its like saying every president should become the most patriotic and idealistic person in a country. we know thats not the case, esepcially in our country. its like saying, just because our president is a thief, does it mean everyone in the Philippines is a thief?
politicians play it safe with every issue because all they care about is getting elected and staying in power. thats the truth. if they feel the majority of voters are on one side of an issue, they would want to be on that same side. they're more concious of their image than on the issues. very few politicans vote for issues as they are
-
"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."
- Carl Sagan
Hello peeps! This thread caught my attention and would like to share a few links that may be able to help sectarian folks here to understand atheists, agnostics and free thinkers in general.
http://filipinofreethinkers.org - A recent and probably the only group of local free thinkers in the Philippines. This group is growing fast and gaining more attention. They hold a monthly meetup at Starbucks Shangri-La. You might want to check them out and debate on religious stuff.
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/film-fest - This was a recent film festival organized by the FFF officers. There were some good movies shown in the festival like "Letting Go Of God" and "The Root Of All Evil"
http://rationalhero.com - Not really an atheist/agnostic Filipino website but there are certain topics/posts here that can help enlighten religious folks on the dangers of letting the church meddle with secular affairs. Here are some goods posts to start with:
http://rationalhero.com/2010/01/19/stop-cbcp-politicking-now/
http://rationalhero.com/2009/11/10/reproductive-health-bill-my-perspective-and-thoughts/
http://rationalhero.com/2009/11/09/congress-and-the-cbcp/
I'm an atheist btw and happy about it :)
-
why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God? aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?
-
why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God? aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?
Free thinkers are not necessarily atheists. You can look it up. I'll even do you one better -- ask the people here who have questions about faith, morality and religion if they believe in God. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the answer. I'll start it off by saying that I do believe in God. In fact, I even believe in the Virgin Mary. My whole family are devoted Marians.
Also, free thinkers do not stop other people from thinking about God (one reason being that it is highly impossible), but merely use it as a topic to initiate discourse. Go back to any of the topics and you won't see any person from the "atheist" group explicitly posting something along the lines of "stop thinking about God" or "stop believing in God." On the other hand, we always see posts whose gist is "stop living your life because how you live it is evil in our eyes and you should follow how WE live." Big difference there, don't you think?
Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?
-
Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?
-
Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?
it only shows that lot of people here still cares for them (atheist/agnostics).
-
it only shows that lot of people here still cares for them (atheist/agnostics).
huh? puwedeng pakipaliwanag ang relasyon ng Bible passage diarrhea sa "caring" for atheists and agnostics?
-
Ako na ang mag-eexplain.
Yun kasing mga nasa opposing side of this debate mga makasalanan at walang moralidad. Showing these Bible passages are meant to show you how sinful and wicked these people are and may finally make them realize their wickedness and repent for their sins and change their life and live in service of the Lord. That's how "care" and "love" is shown.
-
atheists lean on scientific documents while religious people use passages and verses. alangan naman both sides will just lean on personal ideas without some sort of basis for their beliefs.
-
why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God? aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?
Personally, I don't criticize people for believing in God.
I question, critically, some of their other peripheral, often irrational, beliefs. For instance, believing that pork is unclean, that blood transfusions are unclean, or that the Earth and the Universe around are less than 10,000 years old.
-
Personally, I don't criticize people for believing in God.
I question, critically, some of their other peripheral, often irrational, beliefs. For instance, believing that pork is unclean, that blood transfusions are unclean, or that the Earth and the Universe around are less than 10,000 years old.
Add also the irrational belief that people who don't believe or agnostic/skeptical in the existence deity/god/teapot are sinful and immoral. For the religious, I highly recommend this video as a good introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
Atheists are fundamentally freethinkers. I'm guessing that some people are twisting the definition on what a free thinker, or freethought is also about. Here's a simple definition borrowed from Wikipedia:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
We can go even further by explaining how to be free thinker. Here's a good article fro Scott Berkun:
http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/how-to-be-a-free-thinker/
It can be argued that Buddha is perhaps a good example of a freethinker. Unfortunately some of his followers have corrupted the core essence of his teachings and wrapped these with dogmas and beliefs. Buddha might not have wanted to his followers to build a religion around it (look for the Buddhism Without Beliefs for a good read on this topic).
I'm speculating also that Jesus might not have really wanted his followers to treat him as a son of god and created a religion. The Romans, however, where the ones who created it as a religion, opium for the masses.
But going back to the thread subject on Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines, it's good that there are now groups of people flocking together to share/debate on ideas about atheism and agnosticism. I think this is a good trend that there are now Filipinos who are speaking out that they don't subscribe to any religion, and help break the taboo on the misunderstood minority of free thinkers.
Since this thread is part of a forum focused on DVDs, it would be good to share some good movies about the subject of Atheism and Agnosticism.
-
why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God? aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?
Yes people are free to think about god, but this does not make them free thinkers.
You might be referring to militant/intolerant atheists, just like Richard Dawkins. Not all atheists are blatantly criticizing religious people, or those who believe in deities/gods, same goes with religious folks not adamantly playing down with those that don't belong to their faith. Atheists are just plain people also. It just so happens that they don't believe in deities, they're against the mainstream flow of believers. Funny, here in the Philippines and America, the idea of not believing in a god is considered taboo. That's probably why some atheists are hitting back and criticize back those religious bigots.
-
Ako na ang mag-eexplain.
Yun kasing mga nasa opposing side of this debate mga makasalanan at walang moralidad. Showing these Bible passages are meant to show you how sinful and wicked these people are and may finally make them realize their wickedness and repent for their sins and change their life and live in service of the Lord. That's how "care" and "love" is shown.
I guess those who are not Christians but are religious (example Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Taoists) are sinful and wicked. I think this is a very good example of bigotry.
Care and love, emotions and perhaps morality are not exclusive to humans. Please read up on animal altruism, that may give you a different perspective.
-
Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?
There are religious trolls out there to sanitize the "infidels" ;D
-
Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?
I don't know, I didn't know about this until you posted about it :)
I think people who question religion and don't subscribe to it are automatically labeled as atheists by religious folks. This is incorrect, I think a better label would be skeptics :)
Atheist is a person who don't believe in deities and gods, that's the simplest definition. Agnostics are unsure with the existence of a god, that any truth claimed for the existence of gods/deities are unknown or unknowable. There are further classifications on agnosticism, there could be strong agnosticism, agnostic atheist, and agnostic theism (a.k.a. as a spiritual person).
-
I think people who question religion and don't subscribe to it are automatically labeled as atheists by religious folks. This is incorrect, I think a better label would be skeptics :)
Speaking of skeptics, I notice that it's usually the atheists that are the best skeptics.
My favorite skeptic site is snopes.com, an urban legend debunker site founded by Barbara & David Mikkelson. Has anybody seen the documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There"? I haven't seen it yet, but I know there's a segment where the Mikkelsons were interviewed.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5136WKQ5Z6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
DVD cover art, The God Who Wasn't There
Youtube trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI
-
Yes people are free to think about god, but this does not make them free thinkers.
You might be referring to militant/intolerant atheists, just like Richard Dawkins. Not all atheists are blatantly criticizing religious people, or those who believe in deities/gods, same goes with religious folks not adamantly playing down with those that don't belong to their faith. Atheists are just plain people also. It just so happens that they don't believe in deities, they're against the mainstream flow of believers. Funny, here in the Philippines and America, the idea of not believing in a god is considered taboo. That's probably why some atheists are hitting back and criticize back those religious bigots.
true. usually the atheists on the web are the ones who act like these
my boss as far as i know is an atheist and he's a good guy. he never even says anything about my crucifix necklace thats i always wear outside my shirt
how come religious can't be free thinkers? atheism is also closed thinking because you're closing your mind to the possibility that there is a god
-
Free thinkers are not necessarily atheists. You can look it up. I'll even do you one better -- ask the people here who have questions about faith, morality and religion if they believe in God. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the answer. I'll start it off by saying that I do believe in God. In fact, I even believe in the Virgin Mary. My whole family are devoted Marians.
well, among those who i come across online who refer to themselves as free thinkers are atheists
Also, free thinkers do not stop other people from thinking about God (one reason being that it is highly impossible), but merely use it as a topic to initiate discourse. Go back to any of the topics and you won't see any person from the "atheist" group explicitly posting something along the lines of "stop thinking about God" or "stop believing in God." On the other hand, we always see posts whose gist is "stop living your life because how you live it is evil in our eyes and you should follow how WE live." Big difference there, don't you think?
Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?
well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?
atheist = one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god/gods
-
Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?
well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?
indie boi's statement pertained to people who questioned the concept and nature of faith and God, not the existence of God.
On the other hand, if I question the existence of Allah, does that make me an atheist? How about questioning the existence of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva?
-
well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?indie boi's statement pertained to people who questioned the concept and nature of faith and God, not the existence of God.
On the other hand, if I question the existence of Allah, does that make me an atheist? How about questioning the existence of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva?
It makes you the pope and his followers.
-
true. usually the atheists on the web are the ones who act like these
my boss as far as i know is an atheist and he's a good guy. he never even says anything about my crucifix necklace thats i always wear outside my shirt
how come religious can't be free thinkers? atheism is also closed thinking because you're closing your mind to the possibility that there is a god
Actually a theist can be a freethinker. If you have read Scott Berkun's article, as long as a person does not fear of being wrong on certain things (this can be also referred to rationality, not to be absolutely certain on things/ideas), does not subscribe to dogma, unquestioned ideas/beliefs, the person can be a free thinker.
Here's another good article, http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/freethinker.htm . Here's the conclusion that I fully agree:
...the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based upon perfection.
It's easy to generalize and box people if they are atheists or religious, but that's not how it really works. It's easy to think that atheists are not free thinkers but rather closed minded persons because they don't believe in deities. Here you're focusing on the conclusion and not how atheists derived or came up with their conclusion. If an atheist just claims that there is no god without any reasonable/logical basis, then he/she is no different from a religious person believing in a god just because someone told them so. The former is probably rare but the latter is likely common.
Someone might point out that atheism is also a religion of non-believers. Here's a good article why this is plain nonsense:
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/19/atheism-is-a-religion-and-other-nonsense/
-
Ok I'll start sharing some good movies/documentary films that talks about atheism, agnosticism, and probably some religion bashing ;D
The Root of All Evil?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0774118/
http://www.amazon.com/Root-All-Evil-Original-Program/dp/B0015GEB4O
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UdlEHlLnL._SS500_.jpg)
Synopsis (from imdb.com)
Atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins visits England, America and Israel interveiwing prominant people of faith; Islamic, Hasidic Jews, and the new Christian sects popping up throughout the world, and expressing his view of the extent to which this fanaticism has degraded our civilisation, and will continue to degrade it.
The first part of the documentary is mainly attacking the idea and the obsession behind that idea of 'faith'. He talks about the story of Adam and Eve, which even the Catholic church admits this is metaphorical. So this guys Jesus has himself horribly tortured and murdered in order to save the souls of people who never existed from a sin that was symbolic! Dawkins describes faith as a virus.
The second part delves into the lifestyles these extremists bring their children up in, sectorial schools, complete segregation. Children are very sensitive to what they're exposed to and what their elders tell them. In this way, Dawkins theorises, the narrow-mindedness of faith is spread like a virus from generation to generation. Very few of these children are coming out of school with a mind that is open to the world and everything in it. They're coming out with a whole other fantasy world inside their head, one most of us don't understand, and that world, in their mind, rules the real one that they share with us.
Dawkins is successful in his subtle way of showing that although creationists think evolutionaries are the narrow minded ones, preaching your own 'faith' is a far more damagingly selfish act, probably the result of grandiose delusions.
-
Religulous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mGiYaPfqL._SS500_.jpg)
Synopsis from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/religulous/
Bill Maher travels to Israel, England, the Netherlands, Vatican City, and across America, speaking to people about faith and religion in the very funny documentary RELIGULOUS. Maher, a stand-up comedian who has hosted the talk shows POLITICALLY INCORRECT on ABC and REAL TIME on HBO and has written such bestsellers as DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? and WHEN YOU RIDE ALONE, YOU RIDE WITH BIN LADEN, reaches out to religious leaders as well as regular folk on the street, discussing the existence of God and the importance of organized religion. Maher makes it clear from the start that he is not a fan of religion and does not believe in God, and he has fun skewering people who do--including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, rabbis, priests, politicians, scientists, evangelical ministers, and even a preacher whose church is a converted truck. He also visits such places as the Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida, where he interviews the actor who plays Jesus in a live show there, and the Red Light District in Amsterdam, notorious for its legalized drugs and prostitution. As he has done on his television programs and in his books, Maher questions literal interpretations of the Bible, seeing it more as a collection of fairy tales. Director Larry Charles (BORAT, CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM) intersperses clips from Hollywood films about religion to punctuate Maher's points, often to hilarious effect. The soundtrack is also used effectively, including such songs as the Doobie Brothers' "Jesus Is Just Alright," Ben Folds's "Jesusland," and Billy Bragg and Wilco's "Christ for President." Like such Michael Moore documentaries as FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, Maher's RELIGULOUS uses humor--and lots of cynicism and sarcasm--to examine controversial theories and topics that people feel very strongly about, no matter what side of the fence they are on. In addition to making audiences laugh, RELIGULOUS will make them think.
-
Creation - The True Story of Charles Darwin
http://creationthemovie.com
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41uq%2BU418CL._SS500_.jpg)
Synopsis from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205717-creation/
CREATION is the powerful and true-life tale of Charles Darwin and the most explosive idea in history.
A world-renowned scientist, and a dedicated family man struggling to accept his daughter’s death, Darwin is torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief in a world where God has no place. He finds himself caught in a battle between faith and reason, love and truth. This is the extraordinary story of Charles Darwin and how his master-work “The Origin of Species” came to light. It tells of a global revolution played out in the confines of a small English village; a passionate marriage torn apart by the most provocative idea in history – evolution; and a theory saved from extinction by the logic of a child.
-
The Man From Earth
The best science fiction movie without the star trek like special effects ;D
http://www.manfromearth.com/
(http://www.manfromearth.com/Images/MFE-Home-Page-Background.jpg)
From imdb.com
An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he is an immortal who has walked the earth for 14,000 years. Written by Eric D. Wilkinson
-
Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs Douglas Wilson
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HxFI3EOeL._SS400_.jpg)
http://www.collisionmovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGPceR-pIs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4tHNV9SjE
SYNOPSIS
COLLISION carves a new path in documentary film-making as it pits leading atheist, political journalist and bestselling author Christopher Hitchens against fellow author, satirist and evangelical theologian Douglas Wilson, as they go on the road to exchange blows over the question: "Is Christianity Good for the World?". The two contrarians laugh, confide and argue, in public and in private, as they journey through three cities. And the film captures it all. The result is a magnetic conflict, a character-driven narrative that sparkles cinematically with a perfect match of arresting personalities and intellectual rivalry. COLLISION is directed by prolific independent filmmaker Darren Doane (Van Morrison: Astral Weeks Live at the Hollywood Bowl, The Battle For L.A., Godmoney).
-
Constantine's Sword
http://constantinessword.com
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5159HAG%2ByHL._SS500_.jpg)
Synopsis:
Constantine’s Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion’s influence on America’s foreign policy.
Carroll focuses on Christian antisemitism as the model for all religious hatred, exposing the cross as a symbol of a long history of violence against Jews (and, most recently, Moslems). The film brings the history of religious intolerance to life, tracing it as a source of the fanaticism that threatens the world today. At its core, Constantine’s Sword is a compelling personal narrative — a kind of detective story — as one man uncovers the dark areas of his own past, searching for a better future.
-
so far i've only seen religulous and what i can say is that these documentaries are very short sighted and biased
they only seek to discredit and destroy religon and faith without showing the good side of it. its not even opening a light from a neutral perspective. its heavily biased and Bill Maher is a religion hater and staunch atheist who seeks to end all religion in the world
-
So is this a good side of religion?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence)
German Catholics fume at pope's 'silence'
-
So is this a good side of religion?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence)
German Catholics fume at pope's 'silence'
we're spoiled by the internet
we want instant answers, instant responses
the Pope, being in his position, needs to gather all the facts before he makes a statement, like all world leaders would. you can't just go babbling to the press only to keep changing your statements later as more facts arise
-
so far i've only seen religulous and what i can say is that these documentaries are very short sighted and biased
I'll have to agree in so far as Religulous is concerned that there is indeed bias in how Maher presents his case. What could've been a very enlightening topic was marred by his attempt to railroad his beliefs without allowing it to develop naturally.
Having said that, there are also some nice scenes in this docu, most prominently Fr. George Coyne's segment where he reasoned why the Bible should not be used as a source for scientific thought.
Redrats, thanks for the recommendations. I'll track down these titles. :)
-
I'll have to agree in so far as Religulous is concerned that there is indeed bias in how Maher presents his case. What could've been a very enlightening topic was marred by his attempt to railroad his beliefs without allowing it to develop naturally.
Having said that, there are also some nice scenes in this docu, most prominently Fr. George Coyne's segment where he reasoned why the Bible should not be used as a source for scientific thought.
Redrats, thanks for the recommendations. I'll track down these titles. :)
well, thats the point of these movies. even Michael Moore is very one sided with his docu-movies. while Sicko sure made my happy i moved to Canada instead of the US, i know that Moore didn't show the dark side of the healthcare systems in other countries for the purpose of ridiculing the healthcare system of the US. although i believe that Canada still has a better healthcare system than the US, despite the flaws. but thats for another topic. hhhmmm...i should start one
the best docu-movie i have seen so far is Supersize Me
and i agree the bible isn't a scientific book. the purpose of Scripture is salvation for the soul. what does math or physics have to do with the human soul?
-
and i agree the bible isn't a scientific book. the purpose of Scripture is salvation for the soul. what does math or physics have to do with the human soul?
Agree on this point as well, that's why I don't understand the YEC movement or the admittedly bizarre way some denominations read into scripture as sources for physics and electronic inventions.
-
Agree on this point as well, that's why I don't understand the YEC movement or the admittedly bizarre way some denominations read into scripture as sources for physics and electronic inventions.
LOL, but i for one consider myself a creationist, mainly because of theological issues. although i'm open to a creation event that coincides with the evolutionary theory and the big bang
the most amazing thing i find about Genesis is that the creation sequence is in the same sequence the universe was actually created. except for the part where the oceans and the land existed before the sun and the stars. but the fact that the universe began its existence when God said, "Let there be light," and where else can this light come from but the Big Bang? after which the heavenly bodies were created, then flora and fauna, then man. this comes from people who have no idea about the modern science we rely on today
-
A lot of civilizations believed that in the beginning there was darkness and chaos. And if ever you notice that the Bible contains texts matching scientific discoveries, well, it is because they have observed those in their times hence they write about them. As as example, it was believed that world was round way back before Magellan but they couldn't prove it then.
-
A lot of civilizations believed that in the beginning there was darkness and chaos. And if ever you notice that the Bible contains texts matching scientific discoveries, well, it is because they have observed those in their times hence they write about them. As as example, it was believed that world was round way back before Magellan but there was no proof.
and the fact that creation stories are similar support single origin. although geneticists now offer further proof in the single-origin theory
-
and the fact that creation stories are similar support single origin. although geneticists now offer further proof in the single-origin theory
Did anyone here tell you otherwise?
-
Did anyone here tell you otherwise?
that humans have different points of origin? i remember someone who didn't directly mention it but was suggesting that, it could have been you! LOL
-
I guess it is really that easy to post something here without proof.
-
that humans have different points of origin? i remember someone who didn't directly mention it but was suggesting that, it could have been you! LOL
Me? If Noah is your single point of origin, then yes, I don't believe that.
-
Correct me if I mali ang interpretation ko:
Atheist (or freethinkers) believe (and practice) anything is right and correct as long nobody is hurt.
-
No. There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. Theists believe God exists. No need to complicate things. Doing what is right has nothing do do with it.
There are atheists who do charity work. And there are religious nuts who firebomb abortion clinics.
What atheists are objecting to is the impression that all atheists are automatically evil simply because they don't believe in God.
-
No. There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. Theists believe God exists. No need to complicate things. Doing what is right has nothing do do with it.
There are atheists who do charity work. And there are religious nuts who firebomb abortion clinics.
What atheists are objecting to is the impression that all atheists are automatically evil simply because they don't believe in God.
Clear as day. Though I'm pretty sure that one of the inevitable questions will be how atheists would know right from wrong if they don't believe in God/read the Bible.
-
No. There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.
hmmm... how atheist differentiate good atheist and bad atheist???
-
Simple lang. I'll cite an example. Kapag me sign na "No U-turn", the good atheist will not make a U-turn while the bad atheist will.
-
hmmm... how atheist differentiate good atheist and bad atheist???
Dpogs serious ka talagang hindi mo makuha eto?
Lahat ng normal na tao can distinguish between right or wrong di ba? If I do something that MOST people accept as good based on common knowledge and experience, do I have to doubt myself na it could be bad? Tawag ng Japanese dito ay GIRININJO or literally, basic duties and responsibilities ng isang tao sa society at sa kapwa na base sa compassion - hindi mo kailangang magbasa ng Bible to know these...and karamihan ng patakaran ng bansa at ng society ay base sa ikabubuti ng karamihan. Kailangan mo lang maging BUHAY. Maski mga Atheist alam eto desu ne.
-
Correct me if mali ang interpretation ko:
Religious fundamentalists believe only they are right and everyone else be damned.
This means Roman Catholic evangelists are right and Protestants are damned.
This means Biblical fundamendalists are right and RC/Orthodox/Anglicans are damned.
This means Muslims are right and Christians and Jews are damned.
This means Jews are right and Christians and Muslims are damned.
How do religious fundamentalists differentiate between good religious and bad religious?
If their pastor/priest/rabbi/imam says it's good, then it must be good. Otherwise it's bad. Religious fundamentalists cannot be trusted to make moral decisions by themselves.
Tama ba?
Or, alternatively: if it agrees with their interpretation of the version of the Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh they believe in. Since none of them can readily agree with each other, everyone else is bad according to their respective holy texts.
-
Dpogs serious ka talagang hindi mo makuha eto?
nope... im serious... i really dont know how atheist call their fellow atheist a bad atheist or a good atheist? ano criteria nila to call a certain atheist 'bad'...
kasi kung atheist ako ngayon... eto lang magiging prinsipyo ko.... hanggat wala akong naagrabyado o nasasaktang ibang tao... tama ang ginagawa ko... i thought ganito ang pag-iisip ng mga atheist?
Lahat ng normal na tao can distinguish between right or wrong di ba?
Nope. He cant. a new born child must be guided accordingly as he/she grows.
If I do something that MOST people accept as good based on common knowledge and experience, do I have to doubt myself na it could be bad?
hmmm.... if most people accepted abortion as good... atheist will accept it as good?
hmmm.... if most Filipinos accepted homosexuality as bad will it be bad also to some atheist?
it depends sa takbo ng panahon??? if mali ngayon naging tama later, atheist will just accept that change???
is there particular distinction... or an specific line between what is good atheist and bad atheist???
-
Simple lang. I'll cite an example. Kapag me sign na "No U-turn", the good atheist will not make a U-turn while the bad atheist will.
hmmm... kapag may sign na "kill them"... the good atheist will kill them and the bad atheist will not kill them???
we know na mali talaga ang nag u-turn sa no u-turn area on the ground na not following instructions....
what if the instruction is:
"Kill all Theist"... good atheist will do it ... and bad atheist will not do it ???
any distinction... between bad atheist and good atheist??? or it depends sa kung ano ang gusto ng karamihan???
-
Here's another way to look at it.
Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign or a "Bawal ang Umihi dito" sign? If you'll be able to answer that then everything will be clear to you.
-
Yes. Kapag me "Kill them" sign, susundin yun. Let me know pala kung me makita kang ganung sign ha?
-
Here's another way to look at it.
Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign or a "Bawal ang Umihi dito" sign? If you'll be able to answer that then everything will be clear to you.
hmmmm... following instruction eh...
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"????
-
hmmmm... following instruction eh...
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"????
Hindi mo yata naintindihan yung tanong dahil ginawa mo na namang literal. Tawag dyan ad absurdum argument.
I'll ask it again -- Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign? It can be answered by a simple yes or no.
-
Sa English Grammar, meron tinatawag na UNREAL CONDITIONAL.
Pero yeah Dpogs, if you will ever find a sign saying, "KILL THEM" in this lifetime, then let me know.
Who can ever tell with absolute certainty what an individual's opinion about every single issue in this world would be? That has nothing to do with being an Atheist or not.
I would guess na Atheists think that after they die, there is absolutely nothing out there...but that doesn't give them the right to do something bad while they live - yeah, they should follow the traffic signs too.
So how do they know what's bad? PERHAPS unless someone was totally isolated from another living creature especially another human being since he/she was born, he/she should know.
-
Hindi mo yata naintindihan yung tanong dahil ginawa mo na namang literal. Tawag dyan ad absurdum argument.
I'll ask it again -- Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign? It can be answered by a simple yes or no.
its simply follow instruction... its about obeying whos in the authority... yes... you must have a proper knowledge that obeying those who are in authority is a good thing to do...
a good Christian will not fail to follow that "No U-Turn" signs...
what i am looking is... without those signs... without signs regarding our moral code....
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"????
-
Sa English Grammar, meron tinatawag na UNREAL CONDITIONAL.
Pero yeah Dpogs, if you will ever find a sign saying, "KILL THEM" in this lifetime, then let me know.
hmmmm...
will these be enough "KILL THEM" sign
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/08/27/nebraska.abortion.protests/art.omaha.abortion.clinic.1.cnn.jpg)
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"?
-
What's the appropriate smiley for matinding kamot ng ulo or sinasabunutan ang sariling buhok?
-
will these be enough "KILL THEM" sign
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/08/27/nebraska.abortion.protests/art.omaha.abortion.clinic.1.cnn.jpg)
Nope. It's an abortion clinic. Di naman sinabi na dapat magpa-abort ka.
Kapag ba nakikita ka ng U-turn slot, pinapasok mo lagi? Kahit di dun daan mo?
-
"kill them" and "abortion" : pareho lang yan...
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"?
how atheist view "abortion".... wala namang signs or nagsasabi na mali ito???
or kapag sa isang lugar bawal ang abortion... bawal din para sa mga atheist...
and kapag sa isang lugar legal ang abortion or accepted ng nakakarami... ok na para sa mga atheist...
-
kasi kung atheist ako ngayon... eto lang magiging prinsipyo ko.... hanggat wala akong naagrabyado o nasasaktang ibang tao... tama ang ginagawa ko... i thought ganito ang pag-iisip ng mga atheist?
Mali ka. Plain and simple. Kahit pa ulit-ulit pang sabihin sa 'yo, ayaw mo naman makinig eh, so, carry on.
I thought ganito ang pag-iisip nang mga Kristiyano: as long as nasa Bibliya, tama ang ginagawa ko. Kaya ang pag-gamit nang condom, mali.
hmmm.... if most people accepted abortion as good... atheist will accept it as good?
hmmm.... if most Filipinos accepted homosexuality as bad will it be bad also to some atheist?
No and no.
You really don't get it. Morals are independent of belief in God.
Of course, you won't get it because for you the only valid basis for morality is the Bible. Except, you don't even agree with other Christians which Bible to use, much less how to read it.
it depends sa takbo ng panahon??? if mali ngayon naging tama later, atheist will just accept that change???
No.
In fact, ang pag-interpret nang Bibliya sumusunod sa takbo nang panahon. Bago nagka Lutheran movement at Sola Scriptura, lahat nang Kristiyano sumusunod sa Santo Papa at sususumpa ayon sa Apostles Creed. Well, mali nuon ang hindi pag-attend nang Misa at pagkumpisal sa pari.
Ngayon, ayon sa pag-interpret nang mga Protestante, well, hindi na kailangan mangumpisal sa pari.
So, kaninong moralidad ngayon ang "depende sa takbo ng panahon"?
-
I thought ganito ang pag-iisip nang mga Kristiyano: as long as nasa Bibliya, tama ang ginagawa ko. Kaya ang pag-gamit nang condom, mali.
No and no.
You really don't get it. Morals are independent of belief in God.
Of course, you won't get it because for you the only valid basis for morality is the Bible. Except, you don't even agree with other Christians which Bible to use, much less how to read it.
No.
In fact, ang pag-interpret nang Bibliya sumusunod sa takbo nang panahon. Bago nagka Lutheran movement at Sola Scriptura, lahat nang Kristiyano sumusunod sa Santo Papa at sususumpa ayon sa Apostles Creed. Well, mali nuon ang hindi pag-attend nang Misa at pagkumpisal sa pari.
Ngayon, ayon sa pag-interpret nang mga Protestante, well, hindi na kailangan mangumpisal sa pari.
So, kaninong moralidad ngayon ang "depende sa takbo ng panahon"?
the bible remains as it is... mali lang ang interpretasyon...
ten commandments still the same...
wala naman nakalagay sa bible na mangumpisal sa pari...
hmmm... not all Christians came from RC....
So, kaninong moralidad ngayon ang "depende sa takbo ng panahon"?
Bible remains as it is... never change...
I thought ganito ang pag-iisip nang mga Kristiyano: as long as nasa Bibliya, tama ang ginagawa ko. Kaya ang pag-gamit nang condom, mali.
The bible never talks about condom... but it really talks about adultery and pre-marital sex...
between married couple i believe there is nothing wrong using condom...
what will be wrong is using condom outside marriage... kaya nagiging bad ang image ng condom... kasi ginagamit ito ng mga hindi pa kasal...
how atheist behave will depend on how community behaves.... right?
-
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
Heto pabalik na tanong.
Kung walang Biblia, how will a Christian behave? Well, if you ask the Roman Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans tradition and apostolic succession predated the Bible so no problems there.
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong..
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
No, because as has been repeatedly said (and I'll be kind, I'll repeat it again), all people are capable of ethics, or, of coming up with a structure for moral judgement. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists alike all are capable of ethics.
Wait, sorry. Let me correct myself. Only some people are capable of ethics. Some people cannot trust themselves to make moral judgments on their own.
example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution...
Can you point us to where in the 1987 Constitution it talks about "man" and "woman" in marriage?
-
if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???
if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
Sir, if I may be blunt, ikaw lang siguro sa forums na ito ang naninawala na kailangan may iba pang magsasabi sa 'yo kung ano ang tama o mali. Everyone else, it seems, believes they are capable of independent moral judgement.
-
Sir, if I may be blunt, ikaw lang siguro sa forums na ito ang naninawala na kailangan may iba pang magsasabi sa 'yo kung ano ang tama o mali.
im proud to be labeled like that... humanly speaking... i cannot determine what is right and wrong (lalon na sa panahon ngayon)... that is why I always read the Bible to remind me what is right and wrong... good thing is and i am very thankful of it... the Holy Spirit lives within me... spiritually speaking.... i know what is right and wrong...
Everyone else, it seems, believes they are capable of independent moral judgement.
not everyone... since there still someone supporitng homosexuality...
there still someone supporting abortion....
-
Can you point us to where in the 1987 Constitution it talks about "man" and "woman" in marriage?
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209
THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
July 6, 1987
I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and promulgate the Family Code of the Philippines, as follows:
TITLE I
MARRIAGE
Chapter 1. Requisites of Marriage
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
source: clickk here (http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm)
kailangang baguhin ang constitution to allow same gender marriage
-
the bible remains as it is... mali lang ang interpretasyon...
At sino ang nagsasabi sa yo na ang interpretasyon mo tama o mali?
Wala.
wala naman nakalagay sa bible na mangumpisal sa pari...
Sabihin mo 'yan kay choy.
hmmm... not all Christians came from RC....
Kaya nga. Pero before the Reformation, almost all Christians were either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Before Luther, walang sola scriptura. So, kaninong paniniwala ngayon ang pabago-bago depende sa panahon?
Bible remains as it is... never change...
Here we go again. What, since the time of Christ? Or since the first synods? Or only since the later ecumenical councils? Or, only after the Reformation?
The bible never talks about condom...
So, does that make it good or bad?
If you clone a human, does it have a soul? Well, if the Bible doesn't say so then we don't know.
Does the Bible talk about human cloning for organ harvesting? Is cloning humans for harvesting organs good or bad?
No, wait—you can't say. No, really. I don't think you can. Since good and bad are exclusively determined by the Bible, if it's not in the Bible—you can't say if its good or bad. To you, there's no such thing as personal ethics or primacy of conscience (since, I'm assuming, your conscience is corrupted by sin).
-
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209
THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Constitution.
-
im proud to be labeled like that... humanly speaking...i cannot determine what is right and wrong (lalon na sa panahon ngayon)...
Well, at least you're honest.
that is why I always read the Bible to remind me what is right and wrong... good thing is and i am very thankful of it... the Holy Spirit lives within me... spiritually speaking.... i know what is right and wrong...
And if the Bible doesn't talk about it?
not everyone... since there still someone supporitng homosexuality...
there still someone supporting abortion...
Yes, and they came to those moral judgements on their own without anybody else telling them.
-
hmmm... so it is confirmed.... that atheist based their moral on society... or ethics kung baga...
if an atheist were born sa mga walang ethics... wala rin silang morality???
if an atheist were born sa panahon ng mga barbarians.... ano sila good atheist or bad atheist???
mao zedong and pol pot??? were they a good atheist or bad atheist???
or masasabi natin na bad atheist sila kasi we have the knowledge that killing is bad...
by the way... who gave us the knowledge that killing is bad???
or bigla na lang naisip ng mga atheist na killing is bad...
when in the point of our history that killing became bad???
-
Cmon dogs, you know the answer to you question. When you were in high school or grade school, before you became ultra religious, did you kill anyone? Did you think killing was okay? Or did you know it was wrong even then?
-
hmmm... so it is confirmed.... that atheist based their moral on society...
Only you keep saying that. Maybe you honestly believe it, too, because you keep repeating it to yourself.
when in the point of our history that killing became bad???
I think a better question is, when was killing justified?
Crusades, Inquisition, Muslim conquests, French wars of Religion, the Thirty years war, Salem Witch trials, Shiite vs. Sunni Muslim genocides in present-day Middle East.
All justified.
-
Cmon dogs, you know the answer to you question. When you were in high school or grade school, before you became ultra religious, did you kill anyone? Did you think killing was okay? Or did you know it was wrong even then?
hindi ako nanakit during that time kasi sasabihin nila basagulero ako... although gustong gusto kong suntukin ang isang pentecostal noon... saka alam ko at nasa batas ng Pilipinas na bawal ang pumatay o magnakaw...saka hindi ako lalapitan ng mga classmate kong babae kung alam nilang mananakit ako...
kaya naging prinsipyo ko na ang ganito as an atheist: "as long as i hurt nobody it is good... as long as wala akong naagrabyado it is good..."
that is why i am confirming it to our atheist here...
as an atheist... it is true that as long as no one get hurt it is good...???
-
Constitution.
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
1987 CONSTITUTION
TITLE I
MARRIAGE
Chapter 1. Requisites of Marriage
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (53a)
source: click here (http://www.kasal.com/html/rr/thelaw/thelaw1.html)
-
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Constitution.
You keep quoting Executive Order 209, signed by then President Corazon Aquino.
Here, let me help you with the relevant article from the actual Constitution, as ratified by the Filipino people in 1987:
ARTICLE XV
THE FAMILY
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
Section 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
-
hindi ako nanakit during that time kasi sasabihin nila basagulero ako... although gustong gusto kong suntukin ang isang pentecostal noon... saka alam ko at nasa batas ng Pilipinas na bawal ang pumatay o magnakaw...saka hindi ako lalapitan ng mga classmate kong babae kung alam nilang mananakit ako...
Interesting.
Nowhere in your statement did you ever say, "I didn't do it because I thought it was wrong." Lahat, "kasi sasabihin nang iba", "kasi sabi sa batas"... in other words, kasi may consequences.
In other words, it's only wrong if there are negative consequences sa yo, tama ba?
So, kung walang negative consequence sa yo, is it good?
it is true that as long as no one get hurt it is good...???
For the umpteenth time, No.
Now answer me, if it's not mentioned in the Bible, can you say whether something is right or wrong?
-
For the umpteenth time, No.
Now answer me, if it's not mentioned in the Bible, can you say whether something is right or wrong?
as i said my bases of right and wrong is the Bible.... and when in doubt dont...
can you give me any moral issue na hindi namention ng bible???
-
source: click here (http://www.kasal.com/html/rr/thelaw/thelaw1.html)
Sir dpogs, your source has a typographical error. The Family Code is different from the 1987 Constitution.
http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_209_1987.html
http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
A real Philippine law site would be more reliable than a layman's wedding guide site.
-
Interesting.
Nowhere in your statement did you ever say, "I didn't do it because I thought it was wrong." Lahat, "kasi sasabihin nang iba", "kasi sabi sa batas"... in other words, kasi may consequences.
In other words, it's only wrong if there are negative consequences sa yo, tama ba?
So, kung walang negative consequence sa yo, is it good?
i was an atheist back then... and all i think is myself... sarili kong kapakinabangan...
so an atheist will be branded bad atheist if what he/she do has a negative impact to himself???
-
can you give me any moral issue na hindi namention ng bible???
Feminism.
-
Sir dpogs, your source has a typographical error. The Family Code is different from the 1987 Constitution.
http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_209_1987.html
http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
A real Philippine law site would be more reliable than a layman's wedding guide site.
oh thank you sir barrister...
hmmm... the constitution speak only about family... di ko nakita ang tungkol sa "marriage".
-
OK lang yon sir. I know it was an honest mistake.
-
how atheist differentiate good atheist and bad atheist???
i was an atheist back then... and all i think is myself... sarili kong kapakinabangan...
Sir, I think you may have just answered your own original question.
-
can you give me any moral issue na hindi namention ng bible???
I was going to mention it but alistair beat me to it. How about cloning? Good or bad?
-
can you give me any moral issue na hindi namention ng bible???
Was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki right or wrong?
If, in a hypothetical war, you had the chance to end it early and save millions of lives, would you kill hundreds of thousands of people (combatants and civilians included)?
When does human life start? If at cell fertilization, is destroying fertilized eggs held in cryo-storage murder?
If, the only way to save a woman's life was by artificially inseminating one of her eggs to harvest stem cells to grow organs—do we commit murder by ending her life or by harvesting her eggs for organs?
When does human life end? Is ending artificial life support for a person who's been brain-dead for several months murder?
-
How about slavery?
Most atheists would say slavery is wrong. However, the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong.
Here are 2 examples:
OK lang ang slavery:
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Eph. 6:5-9, NIV)
OK lang kahit magulpi:
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. (1 Pet. 2:18-21, NIV)
-
Would u like to know what does the bible says about human cloning?
While the Bible does not specifically deal with the subject of human cloning, there are principles in Scripture which may shed more light on the concept. Cloning requires both DNA and embryo cells. First, DNA is removed from the nucleus of a creature’s cell. The material, bearing coded genetic information, is then placed in the nucleus of an embryonic cell. The cell receiving the new genetic information would have had its own DNA removed in order to accept the new DNA. If the cell accepts the new DNA, a duplicate embryo is formed. However, the embryo cell may reject the new DNA and die. Also, it is very possible that the embryo may not survive having the original genetic material removed from its nucleus. In many cases, when cloning is attempted, several embryos are used in order to increase the odds of a successful implantation of new genetic material. While it is possible for a duplicate creature to be created in this manner (for example, Dolly the sheep), the chances of successfully duplicating a creature without variations, and without complication, are extremely slim.
The Christian view of the process of human cloning can be stated in light of several scriptural principles. First, human beings are created in the image of God and, therefore, are unique. Genesis 1:26-27 asserts that man is created in God’s image and likeness and is unique among all creations. Clearly, human life is something to be valued and not treated like a commodity to be bought and sold. Some people have promoted human cloning for the purpose of creating replacement organs for people in need of transplants who cannot find a suitable donor. The thinking is that to take one’s own DNA and create a duplicate organ composed of that DNA would greatly reduce the chances of organ rejection. While this may be true, the problem is that doing so cheapens human life. The process of cloning requires human embryos to be used. While cells can be generated to make new organs, it is necessary to kill several embryos to obtain the required DNA. In essence the cloning would “throw away” many human embryos as “waste material,” eliminating the chance for those embryos to grow into full maturity.
Many people believe that life does not begin at conception with the formation of the embryo, and therefore embryos are not really human beings. The Bible teaches differently. Psalm 139:13-16 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” The writer, David, declares that he was known personally by God before he was born, meaning that at his conception he was a human being with a God-ordained future.
Further, Isaiah 49:1-5 speaks of God calling Isaiah to his ministry as a prophet while he was still in his mother’s womb. Also, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in the womb (Luke 1:15). All of this points to the Bible’s stand on life beginning at conception. In light of this, human cloning, with its destruction of human embryos, would not be consistent with the Bible’s view of human life.
In addition, if humanity was created, then there must be a Creator, and humanity is therefore subject and accountable to that Creator. Although popular thinking—secular psychology and humanistic thought—would have one believe that man is accountable to no one but himself and that man is the ultimate authority, the Bible teaches differently. God created man and gave him responsibility over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29, 9:1-2). With this responsibility comes accountability to God. Man is not the ultimate authority over himself, and he is therefore not in a position to make decisions about the value of human life. Neither, then, is science the authority by which the ethics of human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia are decided. According to the Bible, God is the only one who rightfully exercises sovereign control over human life. To attempt to control such things is to place oneself in God’s position. Clearly, man is not to do this.
If we view man as simply another creature and not as the unique creation he is, it is not difficult to see human beings as mere mechanisms needing maintenance and repair. But we are not just a collection of molecules and chemicals. The Bible teaches that God created each of us and has a specific plan for each of us. Further, He seeks a personal relationship with each of us through His Son, Jesus Christ. While there are aspects of human cloning which may seem beneficial, mankind has no control over where cloning technology may go. It is foolish to assume that only good intentions will direct the utilization of cloning. Man is not in a position to exercise the responsibility or judgment that would be required to govern the cloning of human beings.
A frequent question is whether a cloned human being, assuming that human cloning is one day successful, would have a soul. Genesis 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.” Here is the description of God creating a living, human soul. Souls are what we are, not what we have (1 Corinthians 15:45). The question is what kind of living soul would be created by human cloning? That is not a question that can be conclusively answered. It seems, though, that if a human being were successfully cloned, the clone would be just as much of a human being, including having an eternal soul, as any other human being.
-
How about WAR?
Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?
War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7).
-
And slavery?
There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
-
A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others.
Very, very interesting.
-
Watched "The Soloist" again the other day and found this script very funny and I also remembered this thread.
Robert Downey Jr. was looking for a story for his news column and interviewed a member of a non-believing group.
RDJ: So, you guys are basically united by non-belief.
Non-believer: That's right. Yeah.
RDJ: So, do you non-gather? And non-worship?
Non-believer: We tried, but...
RDJ: Not a lot to talk about.
Non-believer: Yeah.
Non-believer: Now we have a website.
RDJ: Swell.
-
I was going to mention it but alistair beat me to it. How about cloning? Good or bad?
Add also the following:
Hacking and wiretapping, good or bad? (I guess the Bible has something to say also with technology ethics of the 21st century)
Stealing top secret documents to expose the anomalies of a government (think of Daniel Ellsberg), whistleblowing, good or bad?
Genocide in the name of god or commanded by gawd or whatever, good or bad?
How about this, what's the moral lesson from this bible verse? Can the father (his name is Lot btw) be considered "just and righteous" by offering his two virgin daughters to the mob?
Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
-
Very, very interesting.
The big question is how to identify a genuine, true experience of god's grace. Experience is very very subjective and no objective basis. This kind of reminded me of a scene in Carl Sagan's book-turned-into-a-movie "Contact" where Jodi Foster's character is being questioned by a panel for proof on her "outerspace" experience.
I know one person who claimed he has truly experienced god's grace and was very gay about it ;D
(http://www.akiranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/haggard.jpg)
-
Jesus Camp
http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Jesus_Camp.jpg)
From wikipedia:
Jesus Camp is a 2006 American documentary film directed by Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing about a Pentecostal/charismatic summer camp for children who spend their summers learning and practicing their "prophetic gifts" and being taught that they can "take back America for Christ." According to the distributor, it "doesn't come with any prepackaged point of view" and tries to be "an honest and impartial depiction of one faction of the evangelical Christian community".
Jesus Camp debuted at the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival, and was sold by A&E Indie Films to Magnolia Pictures. Controversy surrounding the film was featured in several television news programs and print media articles in 2006.
On January 23, 2007, Jesus Camp was nominated for the 2006 seventy-ninth Annual Academy Award (Oscar) for Best Documentary Feature. It lost to Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
-
so far i've only seen religulous and what i can say is that these documentaries are very short sighted and biased
they only seek to discredit and destroy religon and faith without showing the good side of it. its not even opening a light from a neutral perspective. its heavily biased and Bill Maher is a religion hater and staunch atheist who seeks to end all religion in the world
You have only seen Religulous and you are quick to generalize that "these" documentaries are very short sighted and biased? The bible btw is also biased, right?
-
How about WAR?
Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?
War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7).
Ah yes, and the other camp (Islam) is also thinking of the same thing - the Jews and Christians are infidels and should be wiped out from the face of the earth.
As Bertrand Russell would put it, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
No matter how you try to justify war by citing some bible verses, war is not a rational thing. It only sows more hatred, and the vicious cycle will go on.
I'd like to quote Carl Sagan's message from "The Cosmos" TV series:
"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet."
-
LOL, but i for one consider myself a creationist, mainly because of theological issues. although i'm open to a creation event that coincides with the evolutionary theory and the big bang
the most amazing thing i find about Genesis is that the creation sequence is in the same sequence the universe was actually created. except for the part where the oceans and the land existed before the sun and the stars. but the fact that the universe began its existence when God said, "Let there be light," and where else can this light come from but the Big Bang? after which the heavenly bodies were created, then flora and fauna, then man. this comes from people who have no idea about the modern science we rely on today
Do you know about the creation story in Hinduism? Surprisingly, the cosmic time scale described in Hinduism is almost the same with modern science. The beginning and the end of the universe in the Hindu world is somewhat similar to some scientific theories on the universe (or multiverse).
The Judaism Genesis account could have been borrowed or copied from Babylonian, or even Egyptian creation stories, same goes with other popular bible stories like Noah's Ark, immaculate conception and Jesus' divinity.
-
Clear as day. Though I'm pretty sure that one of the inevitable questions will be how atheists would know right from wrong if they don't believe in God/read the Bible.
You might find the answers here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/determine-morality.html
Here's a trivial question: Buddha did not taught anything about god worship and definitely did not read the bible. Does this mean he does not know right from wrong?
-
Another good documentary film. There's a book as well.
The Pagan Christ
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/paganchrist.html
(http://www.tomharpur.com/books/THPaganChrist003.jpg)
This is Harpur's most radical and groundbreaking work to date, in which he digs deep into the origins of Christianity and how the early Christian church covered up all attempts to reveal the Bible as myth.
What began as a universal belief system has become a ritualistic institution headed by ultraconservative literalists. As he reconsiders a lifetime of worship and study, Harpur reveals a cosmic faith built on these truths that the modern church has renounced. His message is clear: our blind faith in literalism is killing Christianity. Only with a return to an inclusive religion where Christ lives within each of us will we gain a true understanding of who we are and who we are intended to become.
-
How about this, what's the moral lesson from this bible verse? Can the father (his name is Lot btw) be considered "just and righteous" by offering his two virgin daughters to the mob?
Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
In spite of the deterioration of Lot’s faith and his continuing association with the Sodomites. he earns Peter’s judgment as "just" and "righteous." But, as the story shows, being righteous does not necessarily mean being right. His righteousness are related to his heart intents as they were good. But he was vexed, distressed, by the wickedness which surrounded him and his decisions were not right. Thus he failed of the high commendation of faith which Paul gave his uncle Abraham.
The judgment of Lot in the Lord’s eyes is not given in the Bible. We do well, though, to profit from his mistakes and not to repeat them. As for his judgment or ours, 2 Cor. 8:12 says "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."
-
Feminism.
COPIED
What are the issues of feminism? Feminism is a counterfeit solution to the real issue of the inequality of women in a sinful society. Feminism arrogates to itself the right to demand respect and equality in every aspect of life. Feminism is based in arrogance and it is the opposite of the call to the born again believer to be a servant. The actions of the modern, militant feminists are geared to cause women to rise up and rebel against the order that God has given to mankind. That brand of feminism seeks to impose humanistic solutions that are in direct opposition to the Word of God. Feminism was originally a positive movement, focused on giving women the basic rights God intends for every human being to have. Tragically, feminism has gone past those roots to focus on destroying any trace of a distinction in roles between men and women.
What then should be the view of a Christian about feminism? A believing woman, who is seeking to obey God and walk in peace and grace, should remember that she has equal access to all spiritual blessings in Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). A believing woman should not allow herself to be a pawn in the worldly agenda of the feminist movement. Men and women have a God-given privilege to fulfill the plan He has set for us. Rebellion against that plan, and the arrogance that seeks to put self above God's Word, results in very difficult consequences. We see those consequences in the destruction of the relationship between husbands and wives, the destruction of the family, and the loss of respect for human life.
-
Feminism
Ephesians 5
"Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord". ... "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything". ... "nevertheless let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband".
I Peter 3:1, "Like wise you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands".
None of these passages teach that women are inferior in intellect, but that her feminine qualities preclude her being as well endowed for leadership. The subjection does not mean servitude. It is not the relationship of master and slave or as a maid or servant. Hers is a recognition of the husband's leadership, wisdom and tenderness. He should be as loving toward her as Christ loved the church.
At this point, there are several privileges that belong to the wife. For instance, she is to be loved like Christ loved the church as commanded in Ephesians 5:25. She is to be honored as none other in I Peter 3:7, and she is to be praised by her family, Pro. 31:28. In Titus 2:4 we read, "That (the aged women) may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed". Here is a fine list of the responsibilities of the wife. All of these are important, but let us just dwell on four of these.
"To love their husbands" is a command. Too often this is equated by men to believe it is only a sexual relationship and in the mind of some women, that is all they think they are good for. To love your husband means that you are a partner with him, working together toward a common goal. Then you can be appreciative of his actions, efforts and work in supporting the family. You will do all that you possibly can to see that they are comfortable and happy when they come home.
"To love their children", is another command. As men provide for the family financially, mothers s tay home and rear the children. This might often be considered a thankless job. This is an area in which you can excel. As he earns the living and supports the family, you take care of the children while he is gone to work and make the house comfortable by keeping it pleasant and enjoyable. Yes, children can become exasperating at times, but remember, they are children who are still developing and learning. They need that sober guiding hand of the mature mother who lets them know that they are the objects of her love and concern.
"To be obedient to their own husband" points out the closeness of the two." This is not indicating that You can't and do not have any thoughts of your own The idea is that as husband and wife work together and that you are not constantly pulling in an opposite direction. This obedience does not mean that you are a slave or an indentured servant, but rather that you are sharing a mutual goal. The harshness of the word obedient is tempered by the display of love and affection that the husband shows his wife. "To be keepers at home" is a command that indicates a divided responsibility. His job seems to be to go out and earn the living and provide for his family while she looks after the home. Even though a wife does not work outside of the home in what we call public work, she is still vital to the income of the family. Hers is a non-income producing activity, but it is still vitally important to the overall success of the family.
When God created woman, she was taken from the rib of man as is described in Genesis. She was not taken from his foot that she might be crushed underneath his heel in bitterness. Neither was she taken from his head so that she might rule over him. She was not taken from the hand so that she might continually fill the position of waiting upon him. She was taken from the rib on man that she might be by his side continually. She is to be loved and is to respond as a part of his body. Husbands and wives are a part of each other. Let me call your attention to the Old Testament in which the writer Solomon describes a worthy woman. It is Proverbs 31:10-31. These verses quite explicitly give us God's view of a wife and mother.
Proverbs 31:10-31 (King James Version)
10Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
31Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Genesis 3:16
"her desire shall be to man".
Eph. 5:23,
"husband is head of the wife";
I Tim. 2:11-12,
"She shall have no dominion over a man".
Now don't stop at these verses and think that the only responsibility of the husband is to be HEAD of the house. By the way, head does not mean master as in a master-slave relationship, nor does it mean a relationship like a general to a private in the army. It is more like a partnership where one is the leader, guide, director. Now consider this. Can you think of any decision that a husband should make WITHOUT consulting or considering his wife and her wishes? I cannot!
The husband is to love his wife above all other human beings. Consider Eph. 5:25 and 28; and Col. 3:19. These passages teach that the husband is to be considerate and tender. The verses in Ephesians 5 teach that the husband is to cherish his wife. This means that she is to be treated with tenderness and affection. This would mean that since love must be fed, there is to be a warm demonstrative love relationship. The husband has the responsibility of not only demonstrating his love and concern, but telling her. He should not sit in such self-absorption that he does not talk with her and communicate with her socially, mentally, verbally and physically. The husband will demonstrate his love for his wife in other ways, rather than just at the time of sexual relationship. If this is the only time that affection and consideration is shown, then a wife will get the idea that all a husband is interested in is her body and that she is merely a sex object.
I Peter 3:7, teaches that the husband is to honor his wife. She gave up her name to take yours. Honor means that you should show her respect and this involves courtesy, consideration and emotional support. Be sure that as her husband that you do not hold her up to ridicule in public by the cutting remarks that you make. She wears YOUR name and is to viewed as part of your body. She is not perfect and you are aware of this. Do not expect perfection, but as Ephesians 4:32 teaches, "forbear one another". This means to be gentle toward her. Control of temper, abstaining from physical violence and restraining a sharp tongue that makes one feel so inferior - are ways by which you can exhibit forbearance.
-
No matter how you try to justify war by citing some bible verses, war is not a rational thing. It only sows more hatred, and the vicious cycle will go on.
Actually, sir JT's Bible verses did not give the answers either.
Cloning - We all agree that cloning for body parts is wrong, but the questions were about cloning per se.
War - We all agree that a defensive war is justified, but sir alistair was specifically asking about preemptive strikes.
Slavery - He agrees that the Bible does not prohibit slavery, although it does prohibit some forms.
-
More importantly, all these pastings (I apologize if all the above are original postings) illustrate my point.
Even as Christians, there needs to be a careful, structured system and process of discovery and value judgement to arrive at moral decisions, particularly on 'thorny' or modern moral dilemnas.
I mean, a process that seeks to examine all possible facets, motivations and consequences of a moral decision, then weighs those against values and beliefs of an individual, and of society in general.
Now, I call this ethics. Which some people think they aren't capable of.
-
^I suppose we should be glad they found religion or else, what would they have already done, not knowing it was wrong?
-
More importantly, all these pastings (I apologize if all the above are original postings) illustrate my point.
Even as Christians, there needs to be a careful, structured system and process of discovery and value judgement to arrive at moral decisions, particularly on 'thorny' or modern moral dilemnas.
I mean, a process that seeks to examine all possible facets, motivations and consequences of a moral decision, then weighs those against values and beliefs of an individual, and of society in general.
Now, I call this ethics. Which some people think they aren't capable of.
based on your observations... how you categorize then those homosexual activists... ???
what is the approved ethic in our society??? regarding homosexuality or SSM???
-
Dpogs, if I may suggest something, why don't you read up on what morality and ethics mean first just so you can have a more rudimentary understanding of how the two differ? Kahit Wikipedia, it can help. At least may common platform na for discourse. At this point kasi, you're still confusing the two.
-
Dpogs, if I may suggest something, why don't you read up on what morality and ethics mean first just so you can have a more rudimentary understanding of how the two differ? Kahit Wikipedia, it can help. At least may common platform na for discourse. At this point kasi, you're still confusing the two.
homosexuality: moral or ethics???
bakit a minority will insist their behavior (e.g. homosexuality or SSM) to be accepted in a society where majority doesnt approve it???
i just want a simple explanation: how atheist/free thinkers decide that a certain behavior is acceptable or not???
paano nila nasabi na this certain action is acceptable or not???
Theist: its either they have a guidelines Bible/Koran/or their founders declaration
Atheist: government law, sorrounding ethics, as long as no one get hurts (depende sa sitwasyon) ???
because as an atheist before... all i think is myself... what is beneficial to myself iyon ang gagawin ko... action that will have a direct negatve result to myself i wont do it... is this acceptable or not???
-
bakit a minority will insist their behavior (e.g. homosexuality or SSM) to be accepted in a society where majority doesnt approve it???
Same reason the Protestant minority will insist their behavior should be accepted in a society where the majority is Catholic.
i just want a simple explanation: how atheist/free thinkers decide that a certain behavior is acceptable or not???
No, you don't. Your question has been answered countless times, in different threads, but you don't want to listen.
You probably just want to say, "Atheists have no basis for their morality."
If that's what you honestly believe, then there's nothing we can do to change that.
because as an atheist before... all i think is myself... what is beneficial to myself iyon ang gagawin ko... action that will have a direct negatve result to myself i wont do it... is this acceptable or not???
No. More than anything, you were a selfish person. It didn't matter that you were an atheist. In fact, if you're still a selfish person it doesn't matter that you're a professed Christian.
-
hmmm... my thinking as an atheist then can be considered as selfish...
so the argument of homosexuality na
"bakit sila pinapakialaman hindi naman sila nakakapanakit"
"kung saan sila masaya hayaan na lang natin"
is some sort of selfish attitude???
-
Your question has been answered countless times, in different threads, but you don't want to listen.
You probably just want to say, "Atheists have no basis for their morality."
If that's what you honestly believe, then there's nothing we can do to change that.
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?
-
hmmm... my thinking as an atheist then can be considered as selfish...
Again. Your thinking (then) was selfish. It had nothing to do with your being an atheist or not.
You could've been an atheist, but acted out of empathy and compassion, and not purely of out your own self-interest.
On the other hand, lots of Christians act purely out of their own self interest. Anything that 'guarantees' their salvation, even if it requires them to oppress or degrade other people, then that's ok.
For example, firebombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors who perform abortions is 'moral' to a Christian zealot who thinks they are doing the right thing that will earn them a seat in Heaven.
It's no different from a Muslim jihadist who believes he will go to an oasis full of virgins and overflowing honey if he flies a plane into a building full of people.
so the argument of homosexuality na
There's a whole thread for this. Let's try to keep posts where they belong.
"bakit sila pinapakialaman hindi naman sila nakakapanakit"
"kung saan sila masaya hayaan na lang natin"
is some sort of selfish attitude???
The exact same things can be said of praying the Rosary or venerating images of Ganesh.
Unless, of course, you consider yourself the guardian of all righteousness and think that people who pray the Rosary or venerate Ganesh should be prevented from doing so because they're performing idolatry which is a mortal sin.
-
Si dpog's questions are not interrogative, they're rhetorical.
Hmm, you're probably right. I apologize.
You deal with literalists too long, you become one yourself.
But when atheists give to charity, what is their motive if not a selfless concern for the well-being of others?
The cynical bastard in me thinks, "tax breaks".
-
The cynical bastard in me thinks, "tax breaks".
I knew someone would say that. :D
First compute how much tax deduction you'll get. Then compare that with the amount you donated.
The tax deduction would be so small that it would make more financial sense if you didn't give any amount to charity at all.
-
homosexuality: moral or ethics???
Again, read up on morality and ethics so you'll understand. Unfortunately, as some people here have already suspected, it looks like you're not really keen to listen.
-
It seems that atheism is such an ugly word here in the Philippines, as ugly, in fact, as homosexuality -- which are both personal convictions.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but the recent child abuse sex scandals in Europe involving the Catholic Church is kind of getting scant coverage with the the local media. Hmmmmm.
-
Klaus, it is getting a lot of coverage here in Australia. I watch "Bandila" and read the online versions of PDI and ANC--very very scant coverage indeed.
The Catholic Church's evil claws are around the throat of Philippine media it seems.
-
Just like to share A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has
with GOD, the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.
But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent )
Professor : You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young Fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . .. .
Professor : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer)
Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who Created them ?
(Student had no answer)
Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you..
Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD?
Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol,
Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing.. I only have my Faith.
Professor : Yes,Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )
Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat,
a Little Heat or No Heat.
But we don't have anything called Cold.
We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as Cold.
Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat.
We cannot Measure Cold.
Heat is Energy.
Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )
Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir.
Darkness is the Absence of Something
You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it?
In reality, Darkness isn't.
If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?
Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.
You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD.
You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure.
Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought.
It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that
Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing.
Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )
Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and
Cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor,
Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir?
Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar )
Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?
(The Class broke out into Laughter )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . .
No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol,
Science says that You have No Brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
(The Room was Silent.. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly !
The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH.
That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.
NB:
That student was Albert Einstein.
-
albert einstein wasn't christian. he was jewish
-
For the purpose of that story, they had to convert Einstein to Christianity. :)
-
albert einstein wasn't christian. he was jewish
He is a Christian in his faith - he is Jewish in his descendancy! ;)
He is a true atheist ... but that is before ... until he acknowledged the end point of believing in the big bang theory ... that there is God! ... and Science's established rule will compel you to that recognition!
Only theories ... not established facts ... makes atheists! ;D
-
You sure about this? I've read somewhere that Einstein abhorred the concept of organized religion. He is at most a Deist who believed in the concept of God. But the God he believed in is based on Spinoza's concept, that is the universe is God.
I'll research more in a while if I have the time.
-
Just like to share A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION
That student was Albert Einstein.
Yes, that's a very interesting joke that's been making the rounds since... I can't remember. Early versions didn't name the student, apparently now it's in fashion to drop Einstein's name. See snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp).
But here (http://jawwad.weblog.com/a-must-read-conversation-between-atheist-teacher-and-a-muslim-student/)'s a version that happens with a Muslim student and uses Dr. Zakir Naik in place of Einstein.
-
Urban legend.
Sa writing style pa lang, halata na.
Yes, that's a very interesting joke that's been making the rounds since... I can't remember. Early versions didn't name the student, apparently now it's in fashion to drop Einstein's name. See snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp).
Snopes is one of my favorite sites.
That's what I like about atheists. Those guys are very credible debunkers.
-
It makes me wonder, are all atheists skeptics? I mean, do they still believe in ghosts, the paranormal or the existence of aliens?
-
one thing's for sure though, most of those who are Pro SSM are atheists, according to a very credible and knowledgeable source.
-
It makes me wonder, are all atheists skeptics?
To be fair, there are atheists who unquestioningly don't believe in God; they aren't skeptical at all.
-
It makes me wonder, are all atheists skeptics? I mean, do they still believe in ghosts, the paranormal or the existence of aliens?
I don't think all atheists are skeptics although a good number of atheists probably are due to their tendency to question things and their inquisitive nature to seek proof or evidence. Heck some atheists even have a lot more background knowledge about various religions than religious folks.
Other atheists just don't care about that stuff and are atheists simply by choice.
I personally don't believe in ghosts, superstitions and the paranormal/supernatural just as much as i don't believe in god/gods but I do believe in the possibility of alien life, sentient or not.
-
It makes me wonder, are all atheists skeptics? I mean, do they still believe in ghosts, the paranormal or the existence of aliens?
You can't generalize them. Some atheists believe in aliens, etc., some don't.
What I do notice is that atheists are natural skeptics.
Skepdic (http://www.skepdic.com/) used to be my favorite debunker site, before I discovered Snopes. Robert T. Carroll, founder of skepdic.com, is also an atheist, although he doesn't like being labeled as an atheist:
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/notanatheist.html
I'm a big fan of James Randi, a magician whose mission in life is to challenge paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Randi is also an atheist.
Maybe you've some across my post about James Randi vs. the Pear Anjou speaker cables:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=45404.msg781077#msg781077
-
one thing's for sure though, most of those who are Pro SSM are atheists, according to a very credible and knowledgeable source.
its the other way around... most atheist are pro-SSm...
kahit sa thread na ito... makikita naman natin halos lahat sila pro-SSM...
-
Sino dito yung mga atheist? Mukhang siguradong sigurado ka kung sino sila.
-
its the other way around... most atheist are pro-SSm...
That generalization is only your opinion...
kahit sa thread na ito... makikita naman natin halos lahat sila pro-SSM...
...based solely on how you understand what you've read on this forum.
-
He's so obviously thin-slicing his argument. Not surprising since there are also some people who've done the same.
-
im just amazed... bakit merong so called christians pero kung mag-isip ay parang atheist/agnostics...
-
Amazing no? Parang magic :)
-
im just amazed... bakit merong so called christians pero kung mag-isip ay parang atheist/agnostics...
Same way na meron so called Christians pero kung mag-isip ay parang si Hitler. Fair enough?
-
At mayron ding so-called Christians na hindi nag iisip.
-
At mayron ding so-called Christians na hindi nag iisip.
yup... you are so right... :)
-
yup... you are so right... :)
Glad you agreed.
-
Glad you agreed.
yup... maraming ganoong so called christian... di nag-iisip kung ano ba talaga ang tama o mali... kung ano sa tingin niya tama kahit mali ginagawa at sinusuportahan pa nila...
tsk tsk tsk ...
-
yup... maraming ganoong so called christian... di nag-iisip kung ano ba talaga ang tama o mali... kung ano sa tingin niya tama kahit mali ginagawa at sinusuportahan pa nila...
tsk tsk tsk ...
Yup, there are the self-righteous, insensitive and indifferent lot.
-
di nag-iisip kung ano ba talaga ang tama o mali... kung ano sa tingin niya tama kahit mali ginagawa at sinusuportahan pa nila...
Paki-explain, paano daw nangyari yon.
Kunwari, sa tingin ko tama na hindi mag-simba tuwing Linggo, at hindi mag-kumpisal sa pari o mag-komunyon.
Kung sa tingin ko tama 'yon, paano yon naging mali?
-
amen, brother ;)
-
Scientists at CERN allegedly recreating many mini big bangs successfully already.
-
Yup, there are the self-righteous, insensitive and indifferent lot.
actually it is the opposite if you pertain to brother dpogs and those who share same lines in accordance to GOD's commandments
self-righteous ? GOD's words are right.. not the person who share HIS words.. dpogs, myself and others are sinners... never did we denied that, rather, kept repeating it.. we struggled and are struggling hard to resist earthly temptations as we are fully aware that we are finite beings and imperfect ones.. not kid's work as this is an uphill battle
insensitive ? sharing GOD's words in hope to re-direct and enlighten (not force, not malign) sinners like us (dpogs, myself and others) is an obligation of each and every Christian
indifferent ? ..when one claims to believe in GOD yet passively let brothers and sisters to continue and stay on the dark side is clear form of indifference.. quite opposite when one intends to enlighten by sharing GOD's words
-
Then cast the first stone.
-
Then cast the first stone.
wrong verb
-
wrong verb
I'm very clear. Cast the first stone.
-
I'm very clear. Cast the first stone.
ang babaeng tinutukoy doon ay hindi nanatiling "whore"... may pagbabagong nakita... nagbago si magdalene...
same also sa atin... the moment malaman natin na may mga pagkakamali tayo... we need to change...
change must be a personal choice... pero kailangan muna niya malaman na mali ang ginagawa niya...
-
Kaya nga. The gays are still gays. Ayaw magbago. So cast the stone, if you haven't already.
-
Kaya nga. The gays are still gays. Ayaw magbago. So cast the stone, if you haven't already.
the difference between Mary Magdalene and homosexuals today : a repentant heart.
Jesus sees the woman's repentant heart... she admit that what she did was wrong...
it is very different sa mga taong proud pang gawin ang kasalanan...
see the difference:
mary magdalene
1. repentant heart
2. admit that what she did was wrong
mga ayaw magbago
1. no repentant heart instead pride
2. proud to say that what they are doing is right
hindi tayo lalapit sa doctor kung ang tingin natin sa sarili natin ay walang sakit.
-
Kaya nga. Cast the stone.
-
ang babaeng tinutukoy doon ay hindi nanatiling "whore"... may pagbabagong nakita... nagbago si magdalene...
So you believe Mary Magdalene was a repentant prostitute who was nearly stoned to death.
Please study the verses before posting.
-
I'm very clear. Cast the first stone.
i am very clear too.. note the words i used.. compared these to yours
-
So you believe Mary Magdalene was a repentant prostitute who was nearly stoned to death.
Please study the verses before posting.
Yeah. IIRC, the woman was not named and was caught commiting adultery.
i am very clear too.. note the words i used.. compared these to yours
Which ones?
-
Which ones?
read
-
read
Show me.
-
So you believe Mary Magdalene was a repentant prostitute who was nearly stoned to death.
Please study the verses before posting.
Was about to post the same thing. :)
By the way the problem of trying to be clever is that you really need to be one in real life in order to really pull it off. If you're not, any attempts to try to be one will look so fake and almost always fail to look clever. Instead it just looks like a miserable parody.
-
Show me.
it is there, post#872.. readable.. otherwise, you did not
-
guys, if you're going to quote the Bible, please read up first. ;)
-
it is there, post#872.. readable.. otherwise, you did not
What's so wrong with that?
-
but when one person continues to copy and paste the same friggin thing again and again, i don't see that as sharing. forcing perhaps?
-
What's so wrong with that?
you tell me
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Twilight Zone. ;)
-
but when one person continues to copy and paste the same friggin thing again and again, i don't see that as sharing. forcing perhaps?
no
-
yes
-
you tell me
No, you tell me because I don't know what you're talking about.
-
^ i concur sir, it's either something obscure or a monosyllabic answer.
-
No, you tell me because I don't know what you're talking about.
your post (#873) run opposite to my post (#872) ..ayan, para lalong mas easy para sa iyo
Then cast the first stone.
-
You didn't have to quote. I can read back. Now, what is so wrong with what I said?
-
You didn't have to quote. I can read back. Now, what is so wrong with what I said?
read my post #896
-
Wag na po nating pahabain. Hindi ko maintindihan ang ipinupunto nyo, kaya kung maaari sana, pakipaliwanag kung ano ang mali sa sinabi ko.
-
the difference between Mary Magdalene and homosexuals today : a repentant heart.
Jesus sees the woman's repentant heart... she admit that what she did was wrong...
Are you talking about John 7:53-8:11?
Nothing there says anything about Mary Magdalene.
Nothing there says anything about the woman repenting or admitting she was wrong.
Maybe you're pertaining to other verses, sir?
-
Wag na po nating pahabain. Hindi ko maintindihan ang ipinupunto nyo, kaya kung maaari sana, pakipaliwanag kung ano ang mali sa sinabi ko.
your post (#873) run opposite to my post (#872)
-
your post (#873) run opposite to my post (#872)
Oo nga po. So, ano nga ang masama dun sa post ko?
-
Are you talking about John 7:53-8:11?
Nothing there says anything about Mary Magdalene.
Nothing there says anything about the woman repenting or admitting she was wrong.
Maybe you're pertaining to other verses, sir?
And that's only half of the error.
The 2nd half is about the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, traditionally referred to as the Pericope Adulterae.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A53-8%3A11&version=NIV
The fact that the Pericope Adulterae does not appear on the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts has led to the majority view that those verses are a forgery, or an "interpolation" (text that was not written by the original author).
-
I believe that people are entitled to their opinion and I do agree that Atheism/Agnosticism may be on the rise.
-
always saw it as people who hate being tied down by firm discipline
meager minds would simply dismiss having a religion because life is easier that way.
equating to plain laziness and selfishness
-
always saw it as people who hate being tied down by firm discipline
meager minds would simply dismiss having a religion because life is easier that way.
equating to plain laziness and selfishness
meager minds you say? care to explain?
-
they want to live how they want.
-
sorry dpogs but i'm waiting for hexagram's reply
-
sorry dpogs but i'm waiting for hexagram's reply
im replying to Hexagram... not you.
-
im replying to Hexagram... not you.
i really hope so
-
O defense naman. O nag-iinit na ba ang ulo mo? Kala ko ba offense tayo?
-
dude, it really appears as if you enjoy trolling. ;) i have asked you several times to go back to the topic but it seems as if you want to fan the flames. if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and do it. 8)
-
dude, it really appears as if you enjoy trolling. ;) i have asked you several times to go back to the topic but it seems as if you want to fan the flames. if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and do it. 8)
Just look at your own posts. This should be enough to contradict yourself.
-
dude, it really appears as if you enjoy trolling. ;) i have asked you several times to go back to the topic but it seems as if you want to fan the flames. if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and do it. 8)
here is a sample on how you moejun wanted to fan the flames ..you know better than one who posted ?.. based on what ? your brain cells which can read minds, intentions and maturity level of others? ...you are the best entertainment for the week ;D ;D ;D
i really hope so
and you moejun => totally self-contradicting too ;D ;D ;D
-
here is a sample on how you moejun wanted to fan the flames ..you know better than one who posted ?.. based on what ? your brain cells which can read minds, intentions and maturity level of others? ...you are the best entertainment for the week ;D ;D ;D
and you moejun => totally self-contradicting too ;D ;D ;D
go ahead bassnut, but the way you look for things to throw at me is beginning to look pathetic. oh well, if that's what makes you happy. just mind your heart, ok? ;)
-
I don't wanna start a thread just for this but I think related naman to this thread ;D. Pretty cool if true.
Here are some pics 8)
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-discovered/
Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?
A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.
The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.
Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."
There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.
Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.
A team of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers believe that they have found the remains of the Biblical artifact, Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat.
related links
“The significance of this find is that for the first time in history the discovery of Noah’s Ark is well documented and revealed to the worldwide community,” Aalten said at a press conference announcing the find. Citing the many details that match historical accounts
of the Ark, he believes it to be a legitimate archaeological discovery.
“There’s a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is the legendary Ark of Noah,” said Aalten.
Representatives of Noah's Ark Ministries said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000 feet in the vicinity, Yeung said.
During the press conference, team member Panda Lee described visiting the site. “In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."
We walked about 100 meters to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 meters long. I surveyed the landscape and found that the wooden structure was permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks."
Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.
The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was. He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species.
After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.
-
It's funny how Creationist Christians in this case trust carbon-dating the Ark but does not trust carbon-dating when it comes to dinosaur fossils.
-
akala ko nasa Russia ang remains ng boat...
-
dpogs,
Sa inyong paniniwala, asan ang remains?
-
dpogs,
Sa inyong paniniwala, asan ang remains?
ikaw naman... masyadong palatanong...
yan ang "akala" ko.... kasi mga russian at turkish ang unang nakadiscover ...
pero ang nakasaad sa Bible (Gen.8:4) nasa Mt. Ararat... and therefore nasa Mt. Ararat...
nasaan ba ang Mt. Ararat???
-
Di ko kasi alam paniniwala mo e, kaya ko tinatanong. Kung alam ko ba, e, itatanong ko pa?
-
I don't wanna start a thread just for this but I think related naman to this thread ;D. Pretty cool if true.
Here are some pics 8)
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-discovered/
Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?
Noah's Ark always gets "found" every few years ... :D The Hong Kong group "Noah's Ark Ministries International" is only the latest.
Those conservative Christians feel they're not doing anything wrong if they perpetrate a hoax about finding Noah's Ark. They figure it may be a little white lie, but it's a great recruiting tool that helps people believe in the Bible, so what's wrong with that?
Fox News? That's not surprising. Fox News is the same company that played up the "moon landing hoax" story and the "alien autopsy" story some years back.
================================
Latest Noah's Ark 'just wood
planted on Ararat'
Archaeologists make astonishing claim
about alleged discovery of Bible boat
--------------------------------------------
Posted: April 28, 2010
9:30 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
... At least two seasoned archaeologists who have made numerous expeditions to Mount Ararat in search of Noah's Ark are throwing cold water on this week's claim the Old Testament vessel has finally been discovered, saying it's a hoax involving wood hauled in from the Black Sea region.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146941
Ex-Colleague: Expedition
Faked Noah's Ark Find
Updated: 15 hours 37 minutes ago
Chanan Tigay
... In a leaked e-mail that had made the rounds on the Web, Price, a longtime ark-hunter who directs the Center for Judaic Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., says that in the summer of 2008, a group of Kurdish laborers, hired by a local guide working with the Chinese expedition, removed several large wooden beams from an old structure near the Black Sea, then hauled them to a cave near the peak of Ararat, long thought by believers to have been the spot where Noah's Ark washed up.
Price says that those photos of the supposed ark include cobwebs in the corners of the structure's rafters, "something just not possible in these conditions."
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/noahs-ark-found-insider-randall-price-now-says-discovery-may-be-a-hoax/19459208
Is the latest Noah’s Ark discovery a fake?
Published On Thu Apr 29 2010
Cathal Kelly
Staff Reporter
Kurdish workers carted wood up Mt. Ararat in order to fake the discovery of Noah’s Ark, an archeologist who worked on the dig says.
... The bible specifies that the landing spot is “Urartu.” Over time Urartu became Ararat, a name that was given to the mountain long after the bible was written. So it’s not exactly clear where the bible’s authors meant. Thus, it’s slightly suspect that the ark should show up exactly where we want it to be.
... “I don’t know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it,” archeologist Paul Zimansky recently told National Geographic.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/802106--is-the-latest-noah-s-ark-discovery-a-fake
-
Fox News is the same company that played up the "moon landing hoax" story and the "alien autopsy" story some years back.
The Apollo landings were a hoax—it was all filmed in a sound stage on Mars.
-
The Apollo landings were a hoax—it was all filmed in a sound stage on Mars.
;D LOL - After I read a lot of footages, and saw public releases of NASA, I think the same ... we're somehow duped!
Who manufactured coke in the moon?
-
The Apollo landings were a hoax—it was all filmed in a sound stage on Mars.
Capricorn One?
We discussed that extensively in 2003: http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=10572.0
I'm surprised we still have members who think we didn't land on the moon ... ???
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
;D LOL - After I read a lot of footages, and saw public releases of NASA, I think the same ... we're somehow duped!
Who manufactured coke in the moon?
;D Laughing Out Louder
Sometimes people just believe what they want to believe, no matter what anyone else says.
http://www.clavius.org/bibcoke.html
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
-
Mythbuster's episode about the Lunar Landing should be an interesting watch.
-
That's Mythbusters Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing.
Results:
One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.
--- Busted
One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.
--- Busted
A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.
--- Busted
A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.
--- Busted
The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.
--- Busted
The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
--- Confirmed
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/517cmK/mythbustersresults.com/episode-104-nasa-moon-landing
The topic may be OT, but I think it's a good way to illustrate how some beliefs, religious or secular, can continue to be so tenacious despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-
Capricorn One?
We discussed that extensively in 2003: http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?topic=10572.0
I'm surprised we still have members who think we didn't land on the moon ... ???
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
;D Laughing Out Louder
Sometimes people just believe what they want to believe, no matter what anyone else says.
http://www.clavius.org/bibcoke.html
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
Again, a case of who believing what! depends on where you stand (which one convinced you)!
This is not a faith/belief policy to me ... perhaps an open-minded check on both sides is more prudent than outrightly believing whichever ... I still have an open mind though, so it is not a close story to me, remember, I was not there to see it! 8)
... and I admire your 1-page thread extensive discussion of the subject in pinoydvd ;D
he he he ... I will stop laughing on the 2 camps when america lands the Apollo 101 in the 21st century ... good technology they have there in the 60's eh ;D
its interesting to know what happened to the 2 US flags planted on the moon? ... long live America !!! long live NASA ... ;D ;D
Fly me to the moon! ;D
My apology MODS, OT na po ito ... my last po! :-[
-
mods, pa.OT din.....not my last ha ;D
buhay pa rin kaya si elvis presley? si michaeljackson? who killed jfk ?
uncle sHam, $am pala ;D talaga!
-
buhay pa rin kaya si elvis presley? si michaeljackson? who killed jfk ?
Baka nasa Area 51 silang lahat ... 8)
-
I think this was the thread were creationism v. evolutionism was discussed. Here's an interesting article on a British man who, based on scientific data, was discovered to be related to Cheddar Man, a link that spans 300 generations and 9000 years.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-family-link-that-reaches-back-300-generations-to-a-cheddar-cave-1271542.html
-
I consider myself an Atheist. If I wasn't before I arrived in the Philippines I certainly would be after I see how the church has helped crap up this country. You have a church that preaches morals but clearly lacks any. You have a church that preaches to love one another but hoards the wealth and builds bigger and more grotesque churches so that it can dominate the area. You have a church that preaches family values yet it's priests screw any thing under the age of 12 whilst the pope does his beast to cover it up, oh and a Pope who admitted being a Nazi during the war using the same rationale that EVERY Nazi uses when caught, "they made me do it" So yes I'm an Atheist and proud of it.
-
Is there room for levity in the big talk thread? Let's see.
"I'm going to create man and woman with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born in human form. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to. Ta dah!"
God - master of logic since the beginning of time.
-
Is there room for levity in the big talk thread? Let's see.
"I'm going to create man and woman with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born in human form. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to. Ta dah!"
God - master of logic since the beginning of time.
One thing for sure... God's mind and logic is too much better than ours. God is not bound by any limitation... As a Creator He can do whatever He wants to His creation and we must be thankful that the Creator died for His creation.
How about us are we ready to die for whatever we create?
-
One thing for sure... God's mind and logic is too much better than ours.
If that is so—what makes you so sure of what you say about God?
-
I consider myself an Atheist. If I wasn't before I arrived in the Philippines I certainly would be after I see how the church has helped crap up this country. You have a church that preaches morals but clearly lacks any. You have a church that preaches to love one another but hoards the wealth and builds bigger and more grotesque churches so that it can dominate the area. You have a church that preaches family values yet it's priests screw any thing under the age of 12 whilst the pope does his beast to cover it up, oh and a Pope who admitted being a Nazi during the war using the same rationale that EVERY Nazi uses when caught, "they made me do it" So yes I'm an Atheist and proud of it.
I would like just to confirm what made you an atheist. You became an atheist because of what you have seen in the church? What if you have not seen anything to make you an atheist? Would you be an atheist now?
-
I was never very religious but I believed in God. But seen and experienced to much crap to believe in God now and certainly not the church. Don't get me wrong I believe in Jesus as a person, a man who went thru so much but your church has defiled his memory and certainly his teachings. What I have experienced in the 2 years I have been living in Cebu lines of (supposedly humble) nuns queuing to get their hands on mac Book Airs and I,Phone 3GS's in Apple shop in Ayala, a church hospital refusing entry for the poor so that rich councilors to stay there. The nuns/ nurses there were all carrying Mac Books under their arms. This has been seen personally by myself. Christian aid charity telling starving Ethiopians that unless they convert to Christianity they will not give food or medications (that were donated by the public in the UK) You wonder why their missionaries (or rather mercenaries) are kidnapped and murdered by tribal chiefs. The Roman Catholic church is run by a bunch of thieves and whores who sully the name of Jesus Christ.
-
Is there room for levity in the big talk thread? Let's see.
"I'm going to create man and woman with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born in human form. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to. Ta dah!"
God - master of logic since the beginning of time.
The reason why they sound illogical is because they really are illogical.
I'm going to create man and woman with original sin. -
The term "original sin" is not biblical. There's no such term in the bible. Don't confuse Catholicism with Christianity.
Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born in human form. -
The Father and the Son are not one and the same. The "Holy Trinity" is Catholic doctrine. But it's not biblical.
Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. -
The Father and the Son are not one and the same.
To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to.
No such thing as "original sin". Your sins are your own fault.
-
I was never very religious but I believed in God. But seen and experienced to much crap to believe in God now and certainly not the church. Don't get me wrong I believe in Jesus as a person, a man who went thru so much but your church has defiled his memory and certainly his teachings. What I have experienced in the 2 years I have been living in Cebu lines of (supposedly humble) nuns queuing to get their hands on mac Book Airs and I,Phone 3GS's in Apple shop in Ayala, a church hospital refusing entry for the poor so that rich councilors to stay there. The nuns/ nurses there were all carrying Mac Books under their arms. This has been seen personally by myself. Christian aid charity telling starving Ethiopians that unless they convert to Christianity they will not give food or medications (that were donated by the public in the UK) You wonder why their missionaries (or rather mercenaries) are kidnapped and murdered by tribal chiefs. The Roman Catholic church is run by a bunch of thieves and whores who sully the name of Jesus Christ.
I too believed in God but not religious because I believe that relationship with God is a personal matter. That is why I am not affected by those nuns,priests, church because they too have a personal relationship, and will not judge them based on their actions since it is between them and God. So i really dont care about what they do.If you see the life of Christ, he acknowledged the house of God(got mad at those money changers), but did not acknowledge those priests of the church. So I go to church to have a personal relationship with God.
-
I found a Facebook group for Pinoy atheists:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=39660416103 (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=39660416103)
Apparently, there are at least 443 Filipino atheists.
-
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.fox13now.com/news/nationworld/sns-religion-survey,0,7643984.story (http://www.fox13now.com/news/nationworld/sns-religion-survey,0,7643984.story)
-
Here is an antidote:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207601
Blinded with 'science'
Atheist's worst nightmare takes apart Hawking's 'design' flaws
Everything – created from nothing? The assertion begged a reply from the author of "Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution."
"It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing," said Ray Comfort, a best-selling author and acclaimed minister who's confronted and confounded some of the world's most accomplished atheists. "Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn't nothing; it was something – a very intelligent creative power of some sort."
Hawking commits several "greater fallacies of logic," says Comfort.
"Hawking has violated the unspoken rules of atheism," he said. "He isn't supposed to use words like 'create' or even 'made.' They necessitate a creator and a maker. Neither is he supposed to let out that the essence of atheism is to believe that nothing created everything, because it's unthinking. It confirms the title of another book I wrote, called 'You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think.'"
Comfort continues his dissection: "Nor should an atheist speak of gravity as being a 'law,' because that also denotes the axiom of a Law-giver. Laws don't happen by themselves. But look at how careless the professor was with his, 'The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe.'"
Philosopher Roger Scruton noted that same carelessness in a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal.
"If Mr. Hawking is right, the answer to the question 'What created the universe?' is 'the laws of physics.' But what created the laws of physics? How is it that these strange and powerful laws, and these laws alone, apply to the world?" Scruton asks.
The apparent contradictions even caught the attention of the Huffington Post's Ervin Laszlo.
"To answer 'why' our universe 'created itself' the way it did is beyond science. To say that it did so spontaneously is not an answer: It's an excuse for an answer," said Laszlo, who's described as a "systems philosopher and integral theorist."
"When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe 'out of nothing' is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist," Lazlo continued. "He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology – of the negative kind typical of atheists. To deny the existence of a transcendental creator is just as much an act of faith as to affirm it."
Still, many commenting on Hawking's writings predict that few esteemed peers will critically examine his exclusion of a creator in the creation process.
Brian Melton, an author and assistant professor at Liberty University, wrote in Intellectual Conservative, "In the end, I have no doubt that Hawking's statements will settle little, if any, of the debate. … True believers in Scientism will accept anything he says that removes God from the picture with little to no critical evaluation, because they believe such statements to be inherently axiomatic, and those who disagree (myself included) won't be satisfied until the bigger questions that Hawking is apparently avoiding are at least put on the table for honest debate."
Comfort's career solidifies his penchant for debate. He famously challenged celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins to a debate and threw in $10,000 – no matter the outcome – as an enticement (Dawkins countered he'd participate for $100,000).
Comfort also created an international storm of angry protest from the atheist community in 2009 by giving out 170,000 copies of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" to 170,000 students at 100 of the top universities in the United States, England, Australia and New Zealand.
The outrage? The book contained a 50-page foreword, in which Comfort made the case for creationism.
"Both men can easily find the mind of God and through it see how we were created: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,' something of which we were reminded when the first manned mission to the moon read from Genesis chapter one," Comfort said. "We need to read it again."
Young people especially need to read it, Comfort said.
"This generation is having an atheist revival, because they have been fed the lie that atheism is intelligent, when it's obviously not," he said. "We are hoping that this series of books will give them the perspective they are missing."
He also said he knows what won't be missing is the "obligatory resistance."
"No doubt there will be opposition to the series, because atheists are afraid of their core beliefs being exposed," he said. "That's why they tried to stop us giving out Darwin's book and flooded Amazon and gave my books low reviews. No one likes to be seen as a fool, but that's what they are."
Psalm 14:1 / 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Letter to the Roman Christians - Chapter 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For 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:
21Because 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.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
-
Don't confuse Catholicism with Christianity.
8)
The Father and the Son are not one and the same. The "Holy Trinity" is Catholic doctrine. But it's not biblical.
Indeed, Holy Trinity is not expressly indicated in the Bible. However, the concept of Trinity was demonstrated in the Bible. Though, I have reservation on the conventional interpretation of how the Trinity "exists or operates". I can only say, it is beyond my human understanding. They are distinct appearances to man! My thought is that He could shown Himself to man through more than three distinct expression - though He choose on His own wisdom to do it in three. What can I say?
No such thing as "original sin". Your sins are your own fault.
From the biblical standpoint, there is no such mention of original sin. However, the Bible speaks of the sin that entered the world through Adam, and which was passed to all Adamic descendants - the proof: your physical death (being part & parcel of the punishment)!
Of course, you may blame Adam for the punishment you have now in the form of physical death - BUT you can not blame him for your own faults! ;D
-
The article you posted is from World Net Daily, a viciously right wing site filled with people who still think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist born in Kenya. So that tosses your article's credibility out the window.
-
The article you posted is from World Net Daily, a viciously right wing site filled with people who still think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist born in Kenya. So that tosses your article's credibility out the window.
The WND article quotes the book in review written by Ray Comfort.
Even you put the majority or all of those that sides with Hawkins and let them explain the making of everything from nothing will make one wonder if they are scientists or preachers ;D. Even a small child can know the flaws of these scientists' science by asking "what started the first existence?" - THEY DON'T HAVE ANSWERS! ALL THEY HAVE ARE EXCUSES! That is, if all the likes of Hawkins agree with him ;D ;D !
In the same way that WND is rightist by today's western media - demonizing at most Israel's existence - does not necessarily put them into a solid pronouncement of being untrue. In fact, it has been shown that none have been proven otherwise - the mainstream media (in a possible conspiracy) is just lumping things and labeling as a whole (propaganda)!
It is always easy to make excuses ... than answering the obvious question ... that at the end of the day, you know the likes of these people will not really dare to think and reason in a "scientific" or logical/reasonable manner.
A conspiracy by the majority is still a conspiracy - a lie believed, even by the majority will always be a lie! And no amount of apologetics can make a lie closer to truth! Time will make the judgment ... but time is not yet through at the moment!
And when time is up ... to show the judgment ... it is you who is better tossed out of the window! ;D ;D ;D just because you did not dare to think and just believed blindly!
ciao
-
another potential jubilating point for the leftists :D
Could 'Goldilocks' planet be just right for life?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_earths
WASHINGTON – Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right.
Not too far from its star, not too close. So it could contain liquid water. The planet itself is neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere.
It's just right. Just like Earth.
"This really is the first Goldilocks planet," said co-discoverer R. Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
....
Another leap to the advancement of science & discovery :D :D
... that at the end of the discovery, when all the smokes cleared out, will be added to the proof of God's existence ;D ;D
Then ... we will welcome more excuses!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
... that at the end of the discovery, when all the smokes cleared out, will be added to the proof of God's existence ;D ;D
Then ... we will welcome more excuses!!! ;D ;D ;D
No need to wait. Based on a Discovery Channel's special about astronomy in relation to the Goldilocks idea, among other ideas on how life began and is sustained, the greatest discovery in astronomy is the idea that we came from (exploded) STARS. ;) Just watched it yesterday afternoon in high def. ;D
And since it takes billions of years for a star to die, considering that it took man less than a century to reach the moon, then man has more than enough time to just find other Goldilocks planets created by other exploded stars. ;D
-
Indeed, Holy Trinity is not expressly indicated in the Bible. ...
...From the biblical standpoint, there is no such mention of original sin. ...
Part of the discipline in studying scripture is that unbiblical terminologies should be avoided.
If it's OK to use the terms "Holy Trinity" and "Original Sin" even if they are unbiblical, why bother studying the bible? Puwede naman pala ang kahit na ano, e.
Indeed, Holy Trinity is not expressly indicated in the Bible. ...
Ever heard of the Comma Johanneum?
-
No need to wait. Based on a Discovery Channel's special about astronomy in relation to the Goldilocks idea, among other ideas on how life began and is sustained, the greatest discovery in astronomy is the idea that we came from (exploded) STARS. ;) Just watched it yesterday afternoon in high def. ;D
That's the problem of premature jubilation among toxic scientists (scientist that has no other answers except excuses! ;D ) and leftists ;D ;D - no proof to offer yet, and yet behave as if they have proven their point! ;D ;D ;D
Like evolution that enters today's height of science & discovery, what happened is not the trickling of evidences, but rather the reduction of it, as expose of its previous evidences were brought to light! ;D ;D
What did you watch - the proof? ;D ;D - nah! the IDEA it is, but kaput of proof! What a preacher lot you are! Better show us the proof of life! ;D ;D ;D than merely preaching your idea of those goldilocks! (excuses! excuses!)
And since it takes billions of years for a star to die, considering that it took man less than a century to reach the moon, then man has more than enough time to just find other Goldilocks planets created by other exploded stars. ;D
Excuses will never run out from these lot! ;D ;D ;D
Now the big bang is a toxin among the toxics & leftists nowadays - because nobody from the toxics can answer the question "WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG?" and nobody from them will ever dare to think about it! What they have is not proof - BUT EXCUSES! Beats me! ;D
NEXT SERMON FROM THE LEFTISTS PLEASE! ;D ;D ;D
-
Part of the discipline in studying scripture is that unbiblical terminologies should be avoided.
If it's OK to use the terms "Holy Trinity"
I myself am having reservation :) on the use of Holy Trinity if that is your point of argument - I have no problem with that! But it does not remove the fact the God has shown Himself in the Bible in three distinct personality :) - and as I said - He can do so more than three if He choose to! :o
Part of the discipline in studying scripture is that unbiblical terminologies should be avoided.
... "Original Sin" even if they are unbiblical, why bother studying the bible? Puwede naman pala ang kahit na ano, e.
What the RC termed Original Sin - that I do not know! What the Bible said in Romans is basically
"Through Adam sin entered into the world, and so death by sin, and this death was passed upon all men!"
From the above, the consequences of Adam's sin was passed on to us! That is, we will all die! So we share on Adam's penalty! We got his genes of sinfulness! ;D ;D
Our faith does not have the term Original Sin! ;)
Ever heard of the Comma Johanneum?
I read some part of it just now ;) ... but to me, and my personal take on the matter ... it is irrelevant to me based on how I acknowledge His existence.
-
What the RC termed Original Sin - that I do not know! What the Bible said in Romans is basically
"Through Adam sin entered into the world, and so death by sin, and this death was passed upon all men!"
From the above, the consequences of Adam's sin was passed on to us! That is, we will all die! So we share on Adam's penalty! We got his genes of sinfulness! ;D ;D
Our faith does not have the term Original Sin! ;)
I see. I thought you were Roman Catholic.
Yes, it's true that the bible says sin entered the world through Adam. Romans 5:17 says;
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
However, the concept is different for some religions such as Roman Catholicism.
Here's an article (wih nihil obstat and imprimatur) about infant baptism:
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
For the Catholic faith, infants are born with original sin, but it's a sin that can be washed away by baptism. That's why they believe infants should be baptized as soon as possible, so that in case the infant sudenly dies, he will die free from original sin.
As you know, that concept is not biblical.
================================
As for the "Trinity", the proper biblical term is "Godhead", a term that is very seldomly used in Roman Catholicism.
It's essential to understand the term "Godhead" as used in the bible before you can see what's wrong with the Roman Catholic concept of "Holy Trinity".
For example, Collosians 2:9 says, referring to Jesus:
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
-
Science may not have all the answers but it does not invalidate its findings and discoveries.
-
I see. I thought you were Roman Catholic.
I am RC before ... more devout than others here who profess they are :) ... and I know many dogmas of the RC ... which is not really being propagated by the RC church! ;D ;D ;D ... baka mag-alisan ang mga members nila!
Here's an article (wih nihil obstat and imprimatur) about infant baptism:
Baptism is not a biblical sacrament ... it is just one among the many invention of the RC ... probably like Islam, they want to produce lots of "Christians" fast (without the consent; for Islam, with heavy penalty of refusal ;D ) of the person ( the baby ;D ) who can not decide for themselves. So, many RC thought, being a Christian is being born in an RC family - because they are baptized when they are still unaware of who they are! ;D ... and this sacrament will give you a little inch higher out of the burning lake!
It's essential to understand the term "Godhead" as used in the bible before you can see what's wrong with the Roman Catholic concept of "Holy Trinity".
For example, Collosians 2:9 says, referring to Jesus:
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
This is the first time I heard of the use of Godhead instead of Trinity - but I think Godhead is more appropriate - given that I hold the fact that God can show Himself a number of ways (not just three, though He chose it to be just three) - thus Godhead speaks of the fullness of "being God" in any state!
-
Science may not have all the answers but it does not invalidate its findings and discoveries.
You are wrong my friend! ;D ;D ;D
You are ascribing the Toxics and the Leftists as if they are the Science! THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE! 8)
The truth is that - the Toxics & the Leftists distorts Science & its reasoning methods!
Science can hold on to its own ... and it can prove its own ... if not today ... overtime ... as man gains more knowledge , methods , and discovery!
Sometimes, Science will provide answers ... Toxics & Leftists will just ignore it if those answers will not jibe with their axioms that "there is no GOD"!
Thus, these Toxics & Leftists avoid to ANSWER the scientific question posed on to their position
"What initiated the Big Bang?"
- they do not use Science as an answer! ;D
- instead, they use EXCUSES for an answer! ;D ;D ,
- then couple it with "PREACHING THIER IDEAS" ;D ;D ;D
and where are the PROOFS ... nada (wala / non / zero)!
(No wonder many of these Toxics amd Leftists maintain their distance from the Big Bang! - baka ma-corner sila ng Scientific question! :D )
Russels ideas are now considered debunked
... hawkins, from the beginning is already debunked ... by what? Scientific Method! ... and probably Philosophical Method (Logic)!
... Darwinianism and evolutionist scientists are just clinging to the research funds / money! ;D to PREACH! ;D ;D
Read their EXCUSES!
-
aHobbit,
Di na kita maintindihan ;D
-
aHobbit,
Di na kita maintindihan ;D
aba eh, linawin mo ang hindi mo maintindihan, para magpaliwanagan tayo! :) - mapag-uusapan naman natin ang mga bagay eh.
Peace!
-
aHobbit,
Di na kita maintindihan ;D
puro galit at poot ang nasa puso sa mga hindi katulad niya, mahilig mag-label - leftists, toxics atbp
very religious cya hahaha ;D
...at ikaw pa ang maglilinaw ng hindi mo maintindan, ohmygulay!
-
puro galit at poot ang nasa puso sa mga hindi katulad niya, mahilig mag-label - leftists, toxics atbp
very religious cya hahaha ;D
...at ikaw pa ang maglilinaw ng hindi mo maintindan, ohmygulay!
do you have any ideas to share?
(away kasi lagi hanap mo eh)...
-
do you have any ideas to share?
(away kasi lagi hanap mo eh)...
di pa ba bugbog na ang topic?
im a lover not a fighter ;D
-
The article you posted is from World Net Daily, a viciously right wing site filled with people who still think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist born in Kenya. So that tosses your article's credibility out the window.
I just view this comment in the light of medieval times ...
When RC burned the heretics who do not believe the earth is round ... and overtime, the heretics are RIGHT!
The western media ... in the absence of proof (and faces big embarassment should proof be exposed) ... decided to put WND credibility to nothing (as if the mainstream media playing the other propaganda have proven their allegations).
Thus, it is a matter of time that WND position can be proven ... as states begin to put safeguard in their next presidential election some protection clause that is "declare the true nationality of a presidential candidate". Let's see if Obama will pass the test! Then I will join you in denouncing WND!
-
First of all, I'd like to clarify that I am not an atheist. I'm a (semi)-practicing Catholic (although just two steps away from being agnostic).
I'm creating this post because I saw that Richard Dawkins' famous atheist book The God Delusion is readily available in local bookstores and I was wondering if, like in Europe, atheism/agnosticism in the Philippines is becoming just a tad more mainstream.
Do we have any atheists/agnostics on the board and are you open about it in real life?
thread has evolved. ;D
meron ba atheists/agnostics dito sa pdvd? yan ang gusto malaman ng t.s.
;D
-
thread has evolve.
Some would disagree and say it was "intelligently designed."
-
Some would disagree and say it was "intelligently designed."
o.t.
ah ok. sensha na kulang ng "d". ;D
-
I just view this comment in the light of medieval times ...
When RC burned the heretics who do not believe the earth is round ... and overtime, the heretics are RIGHT!
The western media ... in the absence of proof (and faces big embarassment should proof be exposed) ... decided to put WND credibility to nothing (as if the mainstream media playing the other propaganda have proven their allegations).
Thus, it is a matter of time that WND position can be proven ... as states begin to put safeguard in their next presidential election some protection clause that is "declare the true nationality of a presidential candidate". Let's see if Obama will pass the test! Then I will join you in denouncing WND!
The heretics were in the side of SCIENCE.
-
thread has evolved. ;D
meron ba atheists/agnostics dito sa pdvd? yan ang gusto malaman ng t.s.
;D
Wala yata e. Maybe a few? Alfie and sardaukar?
Ok lang ang medyo OT. Kasi kung strictly on topic, hindi man lang aabot ng 1 page ang comments, patay na agad ang thread na ito.
-
The heretics were in the side of SCIENCE.
and proving in court is as "scientific method" as Science, that those WND et. al. is pursuing ... and which the mainstream do not want to happen ... because they anticipate BIG EMBARASSMENT ;D ;D ;D
heretics of that day can prove as well ... but the mainstream will not hear of it! ... because their hold into power & influence will suddenly collapse ;D ;D ;D
-
Some would disagree and say it was "intelligently designed."
For the benefit of those not following the thread before these comments ...
Klaus questions the source of my posting to the rebuttal of Ray Comfort to the arguments of Steven Hawkins - another faulty champion of the Atheists ;D - as lacking credibility ??? because of the branding of mainstream western media!
So the apologetics on the contrary ... ;)
-
Regardless of what you believe in so long as the person is an a-hole she/he/it will remain an a-hole.
Bow. ;D
-
Wala yata e. Maybe a few? Alfie and sardaukar?
Ok lang ang medyo OT. Kasi kung strictly on topic, hindi man lang aabot ng 1 page ang comments, patay na agad ang thread na ito.
I'm Catholic, believe it or not. ;D But I question a lot of what the Church teaches.
-
Wala yata e. Maybe a few? Alfie and sardaukar?
Ok lang ang medyo OT. Kasi kung strictly on topic, hindi man lang aabot ng 1 page ang comments, patay na agad ang thread na ito.
barrister.....bat' mo naman ako sinali.....ukol lang nang trabajo ko na wag magsama nang religion....marami kasing na-si-siraan nang bait ukol diyan...he-he....Kaya nga hindi ako sumasali sa diskurso ninyo. ;) ;D
-
Regardless of what you believe in so long as the person is an a-hole she/he/it will remain an a-hole.
Bow. ;D
Now, this is Bible truth. ;D
-
I too am a catholic by birth. I too have questions about the church. But it does not mean I will leave the church. A church is just a tool to help you understand.
-
A church is just a tool to help you understand.
....or confuse you
................BTW a church is not a tool..... :o :'(
-
Agree with both Tigkal and Alfie. Sometimes, the most silent members make the most sense. ;D
-
Agree with both Tigkal and Alfie. Sometimes, the most silent members make the most sense. ;D
so those who copy and paste entire articles and those who make it a habit of quoting others (even though the posts are from way way back) don't make sense? NO! that can't be right!!! ;D
-
....or confuse you
................BTW a church is not a tool..... :o :'(
Yes I agree, it may confuse you, especially if you force yourself to accept all church teachings as true, and that all that is written on the bible is true, without considering the traditions, customs, biases, people have at that time. For me the church is just a tool,an aid, just so you can be guided to the right path. I am sure that when you die and meet your creator, the creator will not ask you what is your religion/church. If that is the case, I will agree that church is not a tool.
-
I am sure that when you die and meet your creator, the creator will not ask you what is your religion/church.
Exactly. God is not petty or shallow.
-
barrister.....bat' mo naman ako sinali.....ukol lang nang trabajo ko na wag magsama nang religion....marami kasing na-si-siraan nang bait ukol diyan...he-he....Kaya nga hindi ako sumasali sa diskurso ninyo. ;) ;D
:D
Matindi talaga pag relihiyon, hindi lang nasisira ulo ... nagpapatayan pa nga e ... :(
-
:D
Matindi talaga pag relihiyon, hindi lang nasisira ulo ... nagpapatayan pa nga e ... :(
Kaya minsan you can't help but wonder if John Lennon was really right all along.
-
Agree with both Tigkal and Alfie. Sometimes, the most silent members make the most sense. ;D
... and you destroy their essence !!! ;D ;D ;D
-
... and you destroy their essence !!! ;D ;D ;D
Sense sir. Hindi "essence." Mga lalaki to, wala silang "essence." HAHA!
You don't usually use the word "essence" to describe a man. Nakakatawa ka talaga sir Pabili. You're crazy! ;D
Masyado ka namang matampuhin. Are you getting affected because I'm saying the posts of these guys make sense? Do you feel left out? Nalolongkot? ;D
-
Sense sir. Hindi "essence." Mga lalaki to, wala silang "essence." HAHA!
You don't usually use the word "essence" to describe a man. Nakakatawa ka talaga sir Pabili. You're crazy! ;D
at gusto mo pang kuhanin ko pa ang intelligence mo ... tawanan mo ang sarili mo ... ito ang bandera mo! ;D ;D ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
Masyado ka namang matampuhin. Are you getting affected because I'm saying the posts of these guys make sense? Do you feel left out? Nalolongkot? ;D
;D fantasizing again! left out ... in the internet? ;D ;D ;D Do you know how many threads are dead in pinoydvd? or you just don't have idea!
Get a life! ;D Get real! :P
-
Sense sir. Hindi "essence." Mga lalaki to, wala silang "essence." HAHA!
You don't usually use the word "essence" to describe a man. Nakakatawa ka talaga sir Pabili. You're crazy! ;D
Masyado ka namang matampuhin. Are you getting affected because I'm saying the posts of these guys make sense? Do you feel left out? Nalolongkot? ;D
correction: mali ang spelling ... ang tama dapat ay "Nalulungkot?"
ayos... naka correct din... ;D ;D ;D next time english naman... ;)
-
correction: mali ang spelling ... ang tama dapat ay "Nalulungkot?"
ayos... naka correct din... ;D ;D ;D next time english naman... ;)
Haha! Sorry to disappoint you dpogs, tama yung spelling ko, if you know anything about Philippine pop culture. :)
I'll let the others explain na lang. Peace!
To Sir Pabili, hahayaan ko na lang kayo sir. Di ko na pagkakait ang konting kaligayahan nyong nalalabi. ;) Alam ko kung ilan ang dead threads sa PDVD, and FYI nakikita ko din ang mga deleted posts at pwede ko ding i-undelete if need be. ;D
Basta ang advice ko lang, para wag mapahiya double-check muna ang signed account sa PDVD at kung anong thread ang binabasa. :-*
-
Haha! Sorry to disappoint you dpogs, tama yung spelling ko, if you know anything about Philippine pop culture. :)
hmmm.... tama pala ang spelling ng "longkot"... hehehe
-
....or confuse you
................BTW a church is not a tool..... :o :'(
You only get confused if you allow yourself to get confused.
Some members of the Church are just tools. ;)
-
Now, this is Bible truth. ;D
You must be talking about Leviticus 18:22!
Remember folks we cannot eat food that Leviticus 11:10-12 bans! Or else you go to hell! ;D
-
Haha! Sorry to disappoint you dpogs, tama yung spelling ko, if you know anything about Philippine pop culture. :)
I'll let the others explain na lang. Peace!
Yes, tama 'yan. It's a humorous expression.
Ang origin ay TV commercial ng adult phone pals. Tawag ka, bayad ka via credit card, may makakausap ka for a fixed period. Nagkatotoo yung 1970s expression, "Wala akong panahong makipag-usap sa 'yo, 'eto singko, bumili ka ng kausap mo" :D.
Sabi ng TV commercial (which only airs past midnight), "Ikaw ba'y nalulungkot, at walang makausap?" Kaya lang, may pagka-Bisaya ang accent ng female voice-over.
Gumawa ng spoof si Amy Perez sa noontime show MTB (Magandang Tanghali Bayan), ang sabi niya... "Ikaw ba'y nalolongkot?". Naging hit yung expression na yon, hanggang ngayon ginagamit pa rin.
E yung "Ibalik ang suwirti", alam mo ang origin? :D
-
E yung "Ibalik ang suwirti", alam mo ang origin? :D
By the way, tama ang spelling ng "suwirti" in this context. :)
-
You must be talking about Leviticus 18:22!
Remember folks we cannot eat food that Leviticus 11:10-12 bans! Or else you go to hell! ;D
This is an example that when reading the bible, we should consider the values, customs, traditions and biases at that time, and not just accept what is written as gospel truth.
-
To Sir Pabili, hahayaan ko na lang kayo sir. Di ko na pagkakait ang konting kaligayahan nyong nalalabi. ;) Alam ko kung ilan ang dead threads sa PDVD, and FYI nakikita ko din ang mga deleted posts at pwede ko ding i-undelete if need be. ;D
Basta ang advice ko lang, para wag mapahiya double-check muna ang signed account sa PDVD at kung anong thread ang binabasa. :-*
napansin mo pag nabanggit ang "true id" ni aHobbit, medyo "lie low" muna bago humirit uli? ;D ::)
-
hmmm.... tama pala ang spelling ng "longkot"... hehehe
oks lang yung sir dpogs, hindi nabago ang ibig sabihin.
hindi gaya ng turo-turo at toro-toro ;D
-
oks lang yung sir dpogs, hindi nabago ang ibig sabihin.
hindi gaya ng turo-turo at toro-toro ;D
or slut and slot?
-
This is an example that when reading the bible, we should consider the values, customs, traditions and biases at that time, and not just accept what is written as gospel truth.
Hermeneutics.
-
or slut and slot?
hehe my all-time favorite
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000534023/polls_05moralityDT800_3847_561139_poll_xlarge.jpeg)
-
Hermeneutics.
That is a new term for me.Read about occult, magic, etc, to try to understand the bible. The closest plausible explanation for me came from reading the books of Sitchin. But experienced also something that cannot be explained logically, so it is between believing what is logical or just believe.
-
For those na tinatamad magbasa like me. ;D
BBC Horizon 2010 What Happened BEFORE The Big Bang
A 1-hour documentary about some new radical ideas about what was going on before the Big Bang.
It seems cosmologists are indeed diverting from their 20th century idea that the Big Bang is the beginning of time simply because the thought of starting from nothing is logically challenging, to say the least. They are now talking of multiple-universes, big bounce, cosmological natural selection, collision of "Branes" in another dimension, and also representing the universe mathematically as a wave instead of an object - all of which are suggesting that something must have preceded the Big Bang, there is more than one universe, and at least there must have been one big bang like event.
It's just an hour of program, hence only the main idea behind the new theories were presented.
-
Just got the time again to visit this thread and wow, I need to do a lot backreading on this thread!
Here's an interesting ad campaign from some atheists at the US. It would be good if some group here in the Philippines will do the something similar.
One of the best quotes I have read from the ad is this:
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty."
- Albert Einstein
Consider Humanism: The Largest Atheist Ad Campaign In History
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/11/09/consider-humanism-the-largest-atheist-ad-campaign-ever-2/ (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/11/09/consider-humanism-the-largest-atheist-ad-campaign-ever-2/)
Excerpts:
“Humanist values are mainstream American values, and this campaign will help many people realize that they are already humanists and just did not know the term,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “Humanists believe in and value love, equality, peace, freedom and reason — values that are comparable to those of moderate and liberal religious people.”
…
“It’s important that people recognize that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America,” Speckhardt added. “Although religious texts can teach good lessons, they also advocate fear, intolerance, hate and ignorance. It’s time for all moderate people to stand up against conservative religion’s claim on a moral monopoly.”
The point is that religious texts say some horrible things and we shouldn’t put them on a pedestal. We certainly should’ve base our lives around them. The more we can expose people to that kind of thinking and steer them toward Humanism, the better off we’ll all be.
-
And Atheism/Agnoticism is a better alternative?
-
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty."
- Albert Einstein
Einstein (I think at this point) failed to see what happened with the first Creation of God - perfect Adam & Eve - and blessed them. Then, the enemy of God spoiled it - thus penalty was pronounced! However, God is to redeem man, so He established His timeline for the deliverance.
Is He to punish His creation? No. In fact, He established a way to redeem His creation!
But you ask some people will end up being punished. The Bible say - yes!
“It’s important that people recognize that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America,” Speckhardt added. “Although religious texts can teach good lessons, they also advocate fear, intolerance, hate and ignorance. It’s time for all moderate people to stand up against conservative religion’s claim on a moral monopoly.”
What is really interesting to note is that ... atheists also hates religious people! Religious people will accuse atheist as ignorant (of God) ... while atheists will tell religious people as ignorant (of his god - his own philosophy).
Hate is a relative word! Ignorance as well! Intolerance / fear.
Wrong is relative to people who do not have a definitive standard - one that will change overtime!
Thus, what is wrong today by society standard ... will someday become right by society standard. If this is what we adhere to as standard, then I think we are really heading into a big problem - and I would say atheists has many big problems to deal with. They only try to brush aside their problems by reinventing their excuses since their past alibis do not fit anymore to more intelligent assaults to their belief (religion) system!
-
Einstein (I think at this point) failed to see what happened with the first Creation of God - perfect Adam & Eve - and blessed them. Then, the enemy of God spoiled it - thus penalty was pronounced! However, God is to redeem man, so He established His timeline for the deliverance.
Is He to punish His creation? No. In fact, He established a way to redeem His creation!
But you ask some people will end up being punished. The Bible say - yes!
I just cannot understand why knowing the difference between good and evil makes us less than perfect. And be ignorant of the difference makes us perfect. This and other bible stories in the old testament makes me think that the God in the old testament wants perfect obedience. Read the story of Jacob, where God commanded that all women and children will be killed. However one soldier took pity and for that he was killed for not following God's command.
-
Einstein (I think at this point) failed to see what happened with the first Creation of God - perfect Adam & Eve - and blessed them. Then, the enemy of God spoiled it - thus penalty was pronounced!
Wasn't Satan also a creature of God?
What is really interesting to note is that ... atheists also hates religious people!
Do you have evidence for that? Or are you just saying that because "hate is a relative word" (but right/wrong are absolutes).
From what I've seen—atheists couldn't care less about the religious, but only up until the religious start pounding on the atheist's doors and demanding they change their lifestyle to accommodate the religious' views.
-
This cartoon pretty much sums up your point:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fJe81GZWwws/SonuUJVN_LI/AAAAAAAAACA/BF-6jYVAqBw/s400/atheism,cartoon,comic,hypocrisy-6e69f6aa62face97de8afd5f418085ce_h.jpg)
-
I just cannot understand why knowing the difference between good and evil makes us less than perfect. And be ignorant of the difference makes us perfect. This and other bible stories in the old testament makes me think that the God in the old testament wants perfect obedience. Read the story of Jacob, where God commanded that all women and children will be killed. However one soldier took pity and for that he was killed for not following God's command.
The God of the Bible requires perfect obedience!
And if you understood this from your reading ... then you will be able to understand why Jesus needs to come ... simply because we can not obey perfectly.
people already connects death to punishment ... if this is so, then we can interpret that all of us will be punished (because all of us will die).
But God's view of death is just translation ... children get killed, not only by the sword ... and whatever intent God has for that OT event is probably beyond the scope of our limited reasoning ... but far from injustice!
-
Wasn't Satan also a creature of God?
Do you have evidence for that? Or are you just saying that because "hate is a relative word" (but right/wrong are absolutes).
hate (action / response) is a relative word for the society.
right & wrong (reference) becomes absolute to an individual if a standard have been appropriated!
Thus, depending on the chosen point of reference, a pronouncement (relative to the standard chosen) made by the (reference) believer can be viewed as hate by the unbelieving party.
From what I've seen—atheists couldn't care less about the religious, but only up until the religious start pounding on the atheist's doors and demanding they change their lifestyle to accommodate the religious' views.
I think you got it on the side of the atheist ... the laws of US before allowed public prayer ... the atheists removed it, and punishable if violated ... the originals contains the word GOD ... the atheist will try to remove that in the original.
If atheist can live with it ... why bother ... ah, because they wanted their brand / lifestyle also to be accomodated by those who do not believe!
So much for the hypocrisy!
-
I remember how stupid I felt the day I found out Santa Claus doesn't exist. I realised how ridiculous the whole concept was and was clearly just a method of blackmailing children to behave themselves all year round.
Anyway, I'm off to church now. I don't want to piss God off or I will go to hell.
-
A naturalist was reading all your posts....
-
The God of the Bible requires perfect obedience!
And if you understood this from your reading ... then you will be able to understand why Jesus needs to come ... simply because we can not obey perfectly.
people already connects death to punishment ... if this is so, then we can interpret that all of us will be punished (because all of us will die).
But God's view of death is just translation ... children get killed, not only by the sword ... and whatever intent God has for that OT event is probably beyond the scope of our limited reasoning ... but far from injustice!
That is why religion also demands absolute obedience. .just like the Old Testament God.. And I cannot get into terms that God is Perfect, but made man who cannot obey perfectly..
-
And if you understood this from your reading ... then you will be able to understand why Jesus needs to come ... simply because we can not obey perfectly.
dont worry, Jesus will come. in God's time. wag mo siya madaliin
so REPENT......(alisin ko yung "the end is near" - only God knows that. hindi yung panakot ng mga grupong gusto maka-recruit sa pamamagitan ng pananakot. rain of fire and brimstones hehehe ) ;D
-
Atheist ad campaigns stir the pot during holiday season
By Liz Goodwin
Thu Dec 2, 3:30 pm ET
(http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2010/12/AP101201044530.jpg)
Atheists and Catholics have posted dueling billboards in New York City, creating a metaphysical face-off near the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel. One, put up by the group American Atheists, proclaims that Christmas is a "myth." The other, posted by the Catholic League in response, urges commuters: "You know it's real. This season, celebrate Jesus."
(http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2010/12/AP101201045081.jpg)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101202/ts_yblog_thelookout/atheists-slick-ad-campaigns-sometimes-meet-with-resistance
-
^ why pick on someone else' belief? atheists have the upper hand since they don't have anything that you can attack them with. in short, they have nothing but belief in their own reasoning hence self-righteousness comes to mind.
this is like picking on old grandma because she doesn't want to be sent to a home. atheists think followers of Christ are nuisance? why the hate?
joining a religious group may offer spiritual nourishment.
rejecting the thought of religion or a higher being gets you what? more time to scratch your balls perhaps?
-
An interesting interview with a religious scholar who wrote a book called God, Sex and The Bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6VMFjKaCc4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6VMFjKaCc4)
-
I just bought the religious version of Pokemon.
For some reason, none of my pokemon are evolving.
-
I just bought the religious version of Pokemon.
For some reason, none of my pokemon are evolving.
LOL!
-
I just bought the religious version of Pokemon.
For some reason, none of my pokemon are evolving.
;D pasensya na po nagpapaantok lang.
-
The Filipino Freethinkers society is starting to get slightly higher profile in recent weeks, at least online.
I do think it's high time for Filipino atheists and agnostics to speak up and stand up to the Catholic Church in order to create some sort of balance in our society. The Church has been enslaving the Filipino people for far too long.
-
Oo nga naman. Let the Atheists and Agnostics who believe they are Gods to impose their will on their fellow men. Puro naman Catholics ... kami naman ...
-
Oo nga naman. Let the Atheists and Agnostics who believe they are Gods to impose their will on their fellow men. Puro naman Catholics ... kami naman ...
It is Catholics who impose their will. Not atheists. Most atheists don't seek to outlaw religion or religious practice just keeping it out of government.
-
Atheists and Agnostics who believe they are Gods
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one, unless you meant it as a thinly veiled insult—but all you succeeded in was projection.
-
I think these people deny openly that they are Gods. Within themselves is another story.
-
I think these people deny openly that they are Gods. Within themselves is another story.
Do you also think that people who don't believe in dwarves deny that they are dwarves, within themselves, that is? Deep inside?
Oh, I know, I know.
Those Christians who don't believe in the Pope? They openly deny within themselves (whatever that means) that they're the ecclesiastical head of the Catholic Church, right?
-
All you atheists watch out!
Christian girl thanks God for the earthquake & tragedy in Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZjqznnl88g&feature=share
-
It is Catholics who impose their will. Not atheists. Most atheists don't seek to outlaw religion or religious practice just keeping it out of government.
Agree.
John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged
"You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. ... For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors–between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."
-
Naku, you introduced egoism. :)
-
Happy Easter!
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q117/sardaukar13/pdvd/jesus.jpg)
-
LOL! Happy Easter as well. Hope you guys have started looking for those pagan representations of fertility. :)
-
I like to call Easter Zombie Jesus Day.
-
Physicist Stephen Hawking believes there is no afterlife, and that the concept of heaven is a "fairy story" for people who fear death.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail," he told the Guardian's Ian Sample. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20063168-503543.html#ixzz1MZq7EtU6
-
Physicist Stephen Hawking believes there is no afterlife, and that the concept of heaven is a "fairy story" for people who fear death.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail," he told the Guardian's Ian Sample. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20063168-503543.html#ixzz1MZq7EtU6
He is entitled to his own delusions (as everybody has) - he also needs company, just in case. His words is not absolute, isn't it?
If health is to be the basis, I would say he should not even be opening his mouth.
Of course, his co-believers are happy for his declaration. I would say, they should be given opportunity to be happy on their belief.
To me, let's settle the issue when we stand on judgment day before the creator - just in case the other camp is correct. Even if the majority of today's world population agree with Hawking, their description will continue to stand - clueless!
Since matters of belief are too subjective, then I think "cluelessness" will be basically applied to all of us, no matter how much hot air went to any declaration, hawking included!
-
Religious fanatics are FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more deluded than atheists.
-
Religious fanatics are FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more deluded than atheists.
I totally agree with you that’s why man cannot be saved by religion. Only by personal relationship thru the Lord Jesus Christ.
Psalm 93:2 says "Your throne was established long ago; you are from all ETERNITY." But then Ecclesiastes 3:11 says “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set ETERNITY in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”
So no one can fully understand God using his intellect because God has written Eternal nature in our hearts, not in our minds. No wonder bible also says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”.
And what does the Bible mean when it says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’? Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to indicate that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal which refers more to a “moral fool,” e.g., someone without morals. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “immoral people do not believe in God.”
Many atheists are very intelligent individuals. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of morals that leads a person to reject belief in God. People do not reject the idea of there being a Creator Being. Rather, people reject the idea of there being a Creator Being who demands morality from His creation. In order to clear their consciences and relieve themselves of guilt, people reject the idea of God as the only source of absolute morality. Doing so allows atheists to live however they choose—as morally or immorally as they desire—with no feelings of guilt for their refusal to be accountable to God.
Several prominent atheists have admitted this. One famous atheist, when asked what he hopes to accomplish through atheism, declared that he wants “to drink as much alcohol and have sex with as many women as possible.” Belief in a divine Being is accompanied by a feeling of accountability and responsibility toward that Being. So, to escape from the condemnation of conscience, which itself was created by God, one must deny the existence of God in order to deny the moral pull of the conscience.
This is not to say that all atheists are immoral people. Many atheists live relatively moral lives. The point of “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” is that a lack of evidence of His existence is not the true reason people reject belief in God. People reject belief in God due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints He requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them … men are without excuse … their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools … 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 of God for a lie” (Romans 1:18-25).
-
People reject belief in God due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints He requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints.
Not true at all. I do think a huge chunk of atheists don't believe in God or say they know there is no God based on scientific evidence, not because they don't like "moral constraints".
It's similar to saying that the only thing stopping you from raping and killing people is a belief in God.
-
It is a lack of morals that leads a person to reject belief in God. People do not reject the idea of there being a Creator Being. Rather, people reject the idea of there being a Creator Being who demands morality from His creation. In order to clear their consciences and relieve themselves of guilt, people reject the idea of God as the only source of absolute morality.
Can you kindly answer: Which is moral, to worship at home, at the synagogue, at the mosque, or at the Cathedral? Every Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday? Using which book: the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, Hebrew Scriptures, or one of the dozens of versions of the Christian Bible?
Is it moral to eat pork? To smoke? To drink alcohol? Or transfuse blood? Or use contraception? Or hang rapists?
Is it moral to cause the deaths of thousands of non-believers? Is it moral to invade a country in retaliation for the same?
-
Can you kindly answer: Which is moral, to worship at home, at the synagogue, at the mosque, or at the Cathedral? Every Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday? Using which book: the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, Hebrew Scriptures, or one of the dozens of versions of the Christian Bible?
Is it moral to eat pork? To smoke? To drink alcohol? Or transfuse blood? Or use contraception? Or hang rapists?
Is it moral to cause the deaths of thousands of non-believers? Is it moral to invade a country in retaliation for the same?
What exactly is your point? Are you really expecting an answer or just being sarcastic? I can also fill this topic with questions of morality.
Better if you just state your case or better yet ask smart questions.
-
What exactly is your point? Are you really expecting an answer or just being sarcastic? I can also fill this topic with questions of morality.
Better if you just state your case or better yet ask smart questions.
You posit that atheists/agnostics reject God to escape responsibility for their moral actions.
I'm merely questioning the implicit statement that morality can only come from faith.
There are those who would stone an underage rape victim to death according to the tenets of their faith. Do you think they're acting morally?
Millions of people pray to religious icons daily. I suspect you disagree that they're being moral. On the other hand, they would think that if you don't receive the Eucharist every Sunday then you're being immoral.
Since faith is largely subjective, by your logic then morality becomes subjective.
Or—perhaps there's another way to arrive at answers to questions of morality, that are not dependent upon belief in the supernatural or some such diety?
-
I think "personal" morality is very much subjective: food, drugs, gambling, sexuality, clothing, entertainment preferences, etc. As long as it doesn't directly impede on the personal freedoms of others, it's really up to you what you consider "moral" and "immoral". As long as you don't steal, rape, molest, kill, endanger OTHER people, it's your freakin' business.
-
I remember what my father said to me that conflict starts when we impose our beliefs and morals to other people. And Atheists in general does not impose their beliefs. It is the Religious that impose their beliefs since it is mandated in their religion that spreading the good news to other people is one's responsibility.
Atheists do good because it is the right thing to do. Religious do good because they want to go to heaven/does not want to go to hell. Same deed, different reasons. In my discussion with the religious, I pose a scenario that what if there is no promise of heaven, would they still be religious? I cannot get a direct answer. Or what if aliens would visit the earth and all things written in the bible will be explained logically and all the miracles will be explained/duplicated scientifically including making of adam and eve. Would it change their beliefs?
-
Atheists do good because it is the right thing to do. Religious do good because they want to go to heaven/does not want to go to hell.
you are right to mention "Religious"...
but true Christian doesnt do good in order to go to heaven (or dont want to go to hell)...
true Chrsitians do good because they are son of God.
it is natural for true Christians to do good.
those who do good because they dont want to go heal (or want to go to heaven)... they are not true Christian... they are just religious...
Atheists do good because it is the right thing to do.
right before their own eyes?
-
right before their own eyes?
No, according to their pastor's interpretation of their version of the Bible.
-
No, according to their pastor's interpretation of their version of the Bible.
huh.. may mga pastor ang atheist?
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif)
Scandinavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists
By PETER STEINFELS
Published: February 27, 2009
... Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.
It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.
Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=all
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dUAsB-QBL._SL75_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-st,TopRight,8,-14_OU01_.jpg)
Society Without God
by Phil Zuckerman
(2008)
http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148
-
Christopher Hitchens once said that religion is based on the fear of death and hatred of sex.
Prove him wrong, religious conservatives.
-
Christopher Hitchens once said that religion is based on the fear of death and hatred of sex.
Prove him wrong, religious conservatives.
you are talking about 'false religion'...
true religion/Christians are not afraid of death... and they hate sex outside of marriage... and treat sex as sacred within marriage... and must be enjoyed by husband and wife only.
-
you are right to mention "Religious"...
but true Christian doesnt do good in order to go to heaven (or dont want to go to hell)...
true Chrsitians do good because they are son of God.
it is natural for true Christians to do good.
those who do good because they dont want to go heal (or want to go to heaven)... they are not true Christian... they are just religious...
right before their own eyes?
So even if there is no promise of heaven there will be still be true Christians? What religion has no reward policy and still have followers?
Right as defined by them.
-
So even if there is no promise of heaven there will be still be true Christians? What religion has no reward policy and still have followers?
none... because true Christianity is not a religion...
Right as defined by them.
how do atheist define right and wrong? based on what? ang right and wrong ba sa kanila ay 'as long as no one affected'? or base sa civil law ang right and wrong nila... kung ano sinasabi ng government iyon ang tama para sa kanila... or kung ano ang dinidikta ng society iyon ang tama para sa kanila...
-
"Hasa Diga Eebowai" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3i_4NML1fw&feature=related) - a wonderful song from the new hit Broadway musical The Book of Mormon from the guys who did South Park. I'd like to gauge the reaction of our more religious members to this song.
-
none... because true Christianity is not a religion...
Let's rephrase. If Christ didn't promise you heaven, would you still act according to what the Bible tells you to do?
how do atheist define right and wrong?
For the umpteenth time, ethics. You know, based on reason or rational thinking, not belief.
-
For the umpteenth time, ethics. You know, based on reason or rational thinking, not belief.
then... based on their own rational thinking... based on what they believe what is right and wrong...
hmm... ethics change ... right?
Let's rephrase. If Christ didn't promise you heaven, would you still act according to what the Bible tells you to do?
as i told you... true Christian never act (do good) because they want to go to heaven... they do good because it is but natural for them to do good... a true Christians never follow Jesus because he/she wants to go to heaven...
i tell you this... if there is someone here na gumagawa ng mabuti para pumunta ng langit or if someone here follows Jesus because they wanted to go to heaven... then they are not true follower of Christ...
-
For the umpteenth time, ethics. You know, based on reason or rational thinking, not belief.
ano ang rationality (or reason behind) bakit considered para sa mga atheist na tama ang homosexuality?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang pre-marital sex?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang drugs/alcohol/marijuana?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang mga pornography?
ano ang ratonality bakit mali para sa mga atheist ang pagnanakaw/pagpatay?
-
For the umpteenth time, ethics. You know, based on reason or rational thinking, not belief.
then... based on their own rational thinking... based on what they believe what is right and wrong...
hmm... ethics change ... right?
Let's rephrase. If Christ didn't promise you heaven, would you still act according to what the Bible tells you to do?
as i told you... true Christian never act (do good) because they want to go to heaven... they do good because it is but natural for them to do good... a true Christians never follow Jesus because he/she wants to go to heaven...
i tell you this... if there is someone here na gumagawa ng mabuti para pumunta ng langit or if someone here follows Jesus because they wanted to go to heaven... then they are not true follower of Christ...
-
Instead of replying to all the posts, better that I share this article. I hope you will take time to read and hope it shed some light to all …
The Problem of Good (Morality).
In October of 2010, atheist Sam Harris’ book entitled The Moral Landscape was released. In his book, Harris argues against grounding morality in God and says that science is the only vehicle that humanity can use in determining the concepts of good and evil. Unlike other naturalistic philosophers and atheists (e.g. Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell) who have denied the reality of objective moral values, Harris instead argues against moral relativism and subjectivism. Harris believes that a valid alternative to moral nihilism exists, and that science provides the answers that human beings desire where issues of morality are concerned.
To set the stage, Harris defines the playing field (his ‘moral landscape’) in this manner: “The moral landscape is a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to heights of potential well being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering.” The concept of “well being” is key to understanding Harris’ definition of good and evil. Harris says, “Questions about values are really questions about the well being of conscious creatures.” So for Harris, the concepts of good and morality are all about the highs and lows of conscious creatures (animals are undoubtedly included along with humans because, after all, to an atheist, humans are nothing more than more highly evolved animals) and their well being. Harris says a goal for science is to determine and prescribe ways for human beings to ‘flourish’ and through human flourishing, the good life will be realized.
But is the ‘good’ that Harris talks about moral good? That is the primary question for Harris and the arguments he makes in his book. And this is the question and issue that has plagued atheists and materialists who do not try to blend their atheistic position with borrowed Christian teachings. The majority view in the intellectually honest atheist camp is that science and naturalism cannot make moral judgments or statements of ‘oughtness’ where ethics are concerned.
Can science tell the world what contributes to the ‘flourishing’ of human beings? It most certainly can, in the same way that it can tell the world what contributes to the flourishing of an oak tree. But that doesn’t equate to a moral conclusion at all. This is why, years ago, atheist Richard Dawkins made the following comment on the reality of good and evil in his book River out of Eden: “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (emphasis added).
How does a person ultimately resolve what is good or bad, what is moral or immoral? Some, like Dawkins, believe there is no true concept of good and bad. Oscar Wilde, a talented artist who died at the age of 46 from a lifestyle that eventually caught up with him, once remarked “nothing succeeds like excess … nothing is good or bad, only charming or dull.” Others who follow the teaching and philosophy of evolution to its logical conclusion, like biologist William Provine, echo Dawkins when they say: “When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life” (emphasis added).
Yet most human beings do not live this way. And to his credit, Sam Harris acknowledges this in his book and states that there are indeed objective moral laws. At issue are what defines ‘moral’ or ‘good,’ where these good moral laws come from, how they are recognized, and how they are put into practice by humanity.
The problem of Good – Defining Good.
What is ‘good’? In this book, Harris does his best to communicate that ‘good’ is ultimately the well being of conscious creatures. In fact, he consistently argues that ‘good’ is that which causes conscious creatures to flourish. Harris literally wills into existence his definition of good and ends up arguing that no one can ask the question of why conscious creatures flourishing equates to ‘good’ because that is what he says ‘good’ truly means.
To provide his readers with more insight into why he believes atheists can hold to objective moral laws, Harris provides a few analogies. He says that, for example, in chess there are objectively good and bad moves that a player can make, and the same is true in life. Harris also argues that the supposed fact/value divide between science and morality can be easily bridged because (1) Objective knowledge implies values; for example, being logical in one’s thinking is good; (2) Beliefs about facts and values arise from similar processes in the brain.
Is Harris right? First, Harris cannot simply define reality and his concept of good and then expect everyone to follow suit, as we will see in a few moments when the topic of where moral laws arise is discussed. Second, no one argues that there are good and bad moves in chess, or that the use of logical thought and reason is good to employ. However, Harris equivocates the term ‘good’ where morality is involved. Is the bad move a person makes in chess, ‘evil’? Is the person not using logical thought acting in an evil capacity?
Lastly, just because people use their brains for both fact and value operations, such a process cannot be traced back to buttress Harris’ definition of good, especially where morality is concerned.
The Problem of Good - The Options for a Moral Source
If a person omits a transcendent source of objective moral values, then there are three options left for a starting place of the objective moral law:
1. The natural universe
2. Culture or society
3. The individual person
Can the natural universe serve as the source for objective moral values? Since science admits that an effect must match its cause in essence (i.e. a cause cannot give what it does not have), it seems impossible that amoral matter could create beings obsessed with moral behavior. Novelist and poet Stephen Crane put it like this:
“A man said to the Universe,
Sir, I exist!
Nevertheless, replied the Universe,
That fact has not created in me
The slightest feeling of obligation.”
What about culture or society – can it serve as the source for objective moral values? This hardly seems like a plausible possibility given the fact that many cultures and societies exist, and they can differ quite a lot where their moral framework is concerned. Which one is the right choice? For example, in some cultures they love their neighbors, and in others they eat them.
If a singular culture cannot be chosen as the standard, then another possibility is just to let each culture decide on morality, and yet, this becomes untenable unless human beings around the world want to turn a blind eye to customs such as widow burning (a practice where a living wife is burned alive with her deceased husband) or systems such as Nazism. The problem of even deciding what is moral within a culture becomes problematic as well. If the majority rules that rape is ‘good,’ does that make it morally good?
The last choice for a source of objective moral values is the individual person, and it is typically represented in philosophies such as postmodernism or in religions like Wicca whose motto is, “If it harms none, do as you will.” Yet such grounding can be nothing more than emotive in nature; nothing can be labeled as truly wrong. Instead, perceived immoral actions are reduced to statements such as “I don’t like rape” or “For me, rape is wrong.”
In his debate with the atheist Bertrand Russell, the Jesuit and philosopher Frederick Copleston looked at Russell and asked, “Lord Russell, do you believe in good and bad?” Russell replied, “Yes.” Copleston continued, “How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell replied, “The same way I differentiate between blue and green or yellow and green.” Copleston then said, “Wait a minute, you differentiate between yellow and green by seeing don’t you?” Russell said, “Yes.” So Copleston challenged him by asking, “How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell replied, “I differentiate on those matters on the basis of my feelings, what else?”
The fact is it becomes impossible for the individual to be the source of objective moral laws. If two people disagree on what ‘good’ is, how is the dispute settled?
The Problem of Good - Recognizing and Implementing the Moral Law
Without a transcendent source for the moral law, there are four possible ways to recognize and agree on what ‘good’ is. They include frameworks that are either:
1. Utilitarian – whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
2. Pragmatic – whatever appears to ‘work’ where happiness (positive) or consequences (negative) are concerned
3. Subjective – whatever is right for the particular person in the particular situation
4. Emotive – whatever ‘feels’ right
As has been exhaustively argued for centuries, none of these is a good option on its own. Harris denies options 3 and 4 as he believes in objective moral values. He is right on that front. Moreover, this is something some intellectually honest atheists other than Harris will acknowledge. For example, in her debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig on whether objective moral values exist, atheist philosopher Louise Antony admitted: “Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” In other words, it’s tough to argue against the reality that love is better than hate or desire in a world where murder is a virtue and gratitude a vice.
A combination of options 1 and 2 may describe Harris’ way of recognizing good and bad, but if it does, then problems arise. It’s not a stretch to say that such a position could lead to eugenics and the infanticide of babies who are not deemed able to flourish. Euthanasia could also be declared good if it means that the quality of life is raised for the majority by eliminating a minority who are the source of extravagant expense and effort. Left to the sterile choice of science, many human atrocities are possible if carried out in the spirit of improving the flourishing of humanity as a whole. The elimination of undesirables has already been attempted more than once in the past by various regimes. Psychiatrist Victor Frankl – himself a victim of death camps twice in his life – once declared: “I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of defense in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of Nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
A more recent example of such a proposal being put forward for the supposed betterment of the world by a naturalistic scientist came at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science that took place at Lamar University in March, 2006. At the meeting, evolutionist Dr. Eric Pianka presented a lecture about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify his conclusion, he asserted that the only feasible solution for saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
And how would Pianka go about reducing the population of the earth? AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is the airborne Ebola virus because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka omitted the fact that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs. After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at the audience and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” And what was the audience response at the end? The attending scientists gave him a standing ovation.
Forrest Mims, one of the scientists in attendance, summed up the response this way: “I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings.” Evidently the other attending scientists must have believed they would not be included in the 90 percent of humanity Dr. Pianka advocated being eliminated.
Continued …
-
The Problem of Good - Another Obvious Alternative
Harris’ attempt at defining, sourcing, recognizing, and implementing a moral law within the natural universe is somewhat original for an atheist; he must be granted that. However, his attempt at redefining good, his equivocation of the term ‘good,’ and the inescapable conclusions of where his philosophy leads all point to his position being untenable.
What happens when the other obvious alternative for objective moral values is considered: a transcendent source of an objective moral law that defines what good truly is and implements a way for good to be ultimately implemented? What about God?
Make no mistake, Harris is right when he says that people don’t need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. That has never been the argument of the Christian theologian. The Christian argument is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values.
This is something those who founded the United States clearly understood, and why they grounded the rights of American citizens in the way they did: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nothing similar can be found in a statement made by any other nation: moral well-being hinged on a creative act. Life … Liberty … Happiness. It sounds very much like conscious human beings flourishing and experiencing well-being. Moreover, the term “self-evident” communicates the concept of the moral law being undeniable, or objective (so does “truths” instead of “opinions”). Sam Harris would, or should, be proud.
But due to his naturalistic presuppositions, Harris won’t consider God as being a possible source of the moral law, and this in the end becomes his undoing. Harris does not understand an important truth: good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without cause. Atheists believe the universe (their only reference point for eternality) is purposeless and without meaning. But yet Harris wants morality, which cannot be had without purpose and meaning. Harris’ cause has no way of producing either the purpose or meaning he desires, and because a cause cannot produce an effect that has something it does not possess, he is left twisting in the wind for an explanation of how the morality he desires can possibly come about. The atheist’s formula of Impersonal Matter + Time + Chance fails to produce the effect he desires. In fact, it seems to have produced the opposite. This is something well stated in the end of Steve Turner’s poem “Creed”:
“If chance be the Father of all flesh,
Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
And when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.”
Without a cause possessing meaning and purpose, there can be no morality in effect. This leads right back to honest atheists like Nietzsche who admitted that, without God, there can be nothing called ‘good,’ nor can there be anything called ‘evil.’ The logic works this way: if there’s such a thing as evil, you must assume there’s such a thing as good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God – the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil.
The simple fact is moral laws imply a moral law giver (a ‘giver’ that possesses meaning, morality, and purpose itself). Even Harris admits there is an objective moral law, so the obvious conclusion should be there is a moral law Giver.
The Problem of Good - The Conclusion
Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie has stated: “We might well argue that objective intrinsically prescriptive features supervenient upon natural ones constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful God to create them.” Honest thinkers will reach this conclusion at some point if they follow the logical order of where the arguments lead, but what they do once they reach that point is hard to say. C.S. Lewis eventually made it to that place and describes it this way: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
Atheists like Harris have no objective straight line to grab hold of. Few materialists have the courage of Nietzsche to understand and then embrace the real consequences of what the death of God means. Instead, most are like Harris who blink when they stare into the face of atheism and end up with ill-conceived ideas of morality that have no able cause to produce the effect they know is present and real.
NOW LET ME ALSO SHARE THIS TO ALL:
The Bible declares “No one is good but God alone” (Luke 18:19). Good is grounded in the very nature of God, and what He wills is good because He is good. Just as many things can have ‘being’ (or life), but there can only be one thing that actually is Being (or life), the concept of good works the same way. Many things may have some good in them, but there can only be one thing that is good. And this good God invites everyone to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8).
Just think about this. We all know that the bible teaches us and wants us to lead righteous living. If you really wanted to lead a good life then I don’t see any problem believing and following what the bible says. And if you follow but in the end the bible turns out not the true Word of God, its not a loss nor a problem isn’t it since it has made you live a moral life that you wanted.
THE REAL PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU DID NOT BELIEVE AND DID NOT OBEY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, AND THEN IT TURNS OUT TO BE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING AFTER YOU DIE? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WHEN YOU MEET YOUR CREATOR? So don’t you think believing and following what the bible says is a WIN-WIN situation?
And just because there are fake Religions and even fake Christians doesn’t mean genuine one doesn’t exist. Have you ever seen a fake 3 peso coin or fake 15 peso bill? Of course not because there are no genuine 3 peso coin nor genuine 15 peso bill.
Bible says “SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND”. Genuinely seek God and you will know He is true for bible also says “HE IS THE REWARDER OF THOSE WHO DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM”.
-
THE REAL PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU DID NOT BELIEVE AND DID NOT OBEY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, AND THEN IT TURNS OUT TO BE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING AFTER YOU DIE? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WHEN YOU MEET YOUR CREATOR? So don’t you think believing and following what the bible says is a WIN-WIN situation?
No, I don't think that's a win-win.
What if I believed and obeyed the Bible, then it turns out that the true word of God is the Koran. That's a lose right there.
The win-win argument is a common one. In fact, it's so common that it even has a name. It's called "Pascal's Wager".
Opposing Pascal's Wager are two viewpoints:
1. The Argument from Inconsistent Revelations - The high probability of choosing the wrong god; and
2. The Argument from Inauthentic Belief - Merely playing it safe is not authentic belief, and God, being omniscient, would know that the "believer" is using a deceptive strategy.
==================
And just because there are fake Religions and even fake Christians doesn’t mean genuine one doesn’t exist. Have you ever seen a fake 3 peso coin or fake 15 peso bill? Of course not because there are no genuine 3 peso coin nor genuine 15 peso bill.
You're patronizing us ... :(
-
What if I believed and obeyed the Bible, then it turns out that the true word of God is the Koran. That's a lose right there.
Exactly. The entire (too long; didn't read) argument by JT boils down to:
Believe in the Bible, or else. Everything is explained by the Bible.
Well, frankly, that's well and good that your entire worldview and moral decision-making hinges upon the nth-edition, English translation of multiple ancient manuscripts in 3 different, some dead, languages coming from different cultures, with different literary modes, and so on.
Of course, you believe that none of that matters because it's all the inspired word of God. Good for you, and for the millions of other Christians.
On the other hand—there are billions of other people who don't believe in the Bible, or believe in some other Holy Book. I guess... they're all immoral.
-
On the other hand—there are billions of other people who don't believe in the Bible, or believe in some other Holy Book. I guess... they're all immoral.
ikaw ang nagsabi nyan...
maybe the best term is they were deceived...
-
Stop sugar-coating it. If someone doesn't believe in the Bible, then they're morally wrong. Plain and simple.
Like I said—your entire sense of moral superiority rests entirely upon (your own) belief.
-
Stop sugar-coating it. If someone doesn't believe in the Bible, then they're morally wrong. Plain and simple.
ikaw nagsabi nyan... hindi ako...
if someone doesnt beleve in the Bible they are called 'unbeliever'
there are bible believers pero mga immoral... there are non believer pero hindi immoral...
homosexuals, rapist, liars, murderers, harlots so on and so forth... these are the immorals... (sama mo na mga politiko natin)
Like I said—your entire sense of moral superiority rests entirely upon (your own) belief.
same as atheist... belief on their own reasoning...
-
there are non believer pero hindi immoral...
So, maibalik po ang sarili mong tanong sa iyo—saan nang-galing ang sense of morality nila?
same as atheist... belief on their own reasoning...
By contrast, morality based on belief in parables, songs, poems and borrowed myths is superior, right?
-
ano ang rationality (or reason behind) bakit considered para sa mga atheist na tama ang homosexuality?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang pre-marital sex?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang drugs/alcohol/marijuana?
ano ang rationality bakit tama para sa mga atheist ang mga pornography?
ano ang ratonality bakit mali para sa mga atheist ang pagnanakaw/pagpatay?
I don't think it's as simple as "tama" o "mali" but rather the individual freedom to make up our minds within reason. The first four you mentioned are things that do not directly affect anyone else but the individual/s who wish to consent to them. Whether or not "tama" o "mali" para sa kanila, responsibilidad na nila yun. You must have the freedom to choose these according to your own conscience and a secular government have better things to do than try and enforce laws on individual freedoms. Ang pagnakaw at pagpatay, aba, ibang usapan na yun. These directly affect other people because it impedes on people's individual freedoms.
-
hmm... ethics change ... right?
I think it's morals that change.
-
Ethics? Morals? May pinagkaiba ba?
Pagpasensiyahan na natin. Basta wala sa Bible—alien!
-
I think it's morals that change.
its ethics...
-
Check mo muna siguro definition ng ethics. Read up on some Plato and Aristotle. Tapos read up on moral systems. That might hopefully help.
Alistair touched on a very real truth, it's hard to have an intelligent debate when the premise of the other party is that anything that the Bible doesn't mention is not real. Parang dinosaurs.
-
Check mo muna siguro definition ng ethics. Read up on some Plato and Aristotle. Tapos read up on moral systems. That might hopefully help.
Alistair touched on a very real truth, it's hard to have an intelligent debate when the premise of the other party is that anything that the Bible doesn't mention is not real. Parang dinosaurs.
ethics before evolution of man alraedy exists?
kailan lang nabuo ang ethics?
nang ang unggoy naging tao o habang unggoy pa ang tao? ang ethics ba duirng survival of the fittest ay pareho lang ng ethics ngayon?
or as monkeys evolve to human... ethics also evolve?
-
Kailan nga lang ba nabuo ang ethics? And while we're at it kailan lang ba nabuo ang bible? Can you provide us with answers?
Seems like you're going to base your arguments on time -- on which came first. The Vedas are considered the oldest compilation of religious texts. Following your line of argument, we should all become Hindus. Tama ba?
-
What if I believed and obeyed the Bible, then it turns out that the true word of God is the Koran. That's a lose right there.
Have you even tried seeking God? My real challenge there is for everyone to seek that there is a God.
And the God of the bible is a God of relationship not religion as others were. If you will truly search for Him, you will find Him. He will talk to you, and you can hear His voice if you will just humble yourself before Him.
Bible says “ God resists the proud,But gives grace to the humble.”. And you need to believe that He speaks to us as John 10:26-28 says "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
But if you keep on ignoring His calling, He will speak to you thru circumstances.
Exactly. The entire (too long; didn't read) argument by JT boils down to:
Thats probably your problem. You dont want to read, just talk. You didnt get the point but want to conclude.
Try to genuinely search for God. Im encouraging you to read, not just the bible but also try koran and others so that you will also see the difference.
-
How does one search for God and for what purpose is the search? Is it to answer existential questions or to fulfill other needs?
-
tanungin dapat si Ana ng V
-
Try to genuinely search for God. Im encouraging you to read, not just the bible but also try koran and others so that you will also see the difference.
And you assume that I haven't already.
And you still haven't given a sufficient answer as to why your moral code is superior, other than it's what you believe in.
-
Personally, that's my problem with people who has supposedly found God. The rhetoric is -- if you're not one of them then you're:
1. lost
2. unhappy
3. have no direction in life
4. going to hell
It's such a strange concept for them to find well-grounded people who lead happy, ethical lives and comfortable with their place in the universe without having to resort to the Bible. The continuing argument? You're living a lie and you're not really happy -- not happy like them.
We all have our place in the universe and it's not any person's place to tell another person he needs the Bible to be happy.
-
And you assume that I haven't already.
And you still haven't given a sufficient answer as to why your moral code is superior, other than it's what you believe in.
I didnt assume but rather believe what the bible says "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks."
And I never said my moral code is superior. You have assumed that.
Personally, that's my problem with people who has supposedly found God. The rhetoric is -- if you're not one of them then you're:
1. lost
2. unhappy
3. have no direction in life
4. going to hell
It's such a strange concept for them to find well-grounded people who lead happy, ethical lives and comfortable with their place in the universe without having to resort to the Bible. The continuing argument? You're living a lie and you're not really happy -- not happy like them.
We all have our place in the universe and it's not any person's place to tell another person he needs the Bible to be happy.
I understand. Maybe some born again christian (incld me) have given you a wrong impression. And I agree that its not right to condemn other people if they prefer not to believe but rather just continue to share the good news heard and learned from the bible.
Others maybe using the gospel to mock non-believers and its causing offense. Im sharing the Word of God because I experienced what it says. Kung may nakita kang sale upto 80% or a good bargain eh you cant help but inform other people esp your loved ones di ba.
How much more if you found salvation for free.
-
And I never said my moral code is superior. You have assumed that.
Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. You didn't say that you have a better moral code.
You merely dismissed atheists and agnostics for not having morals which is why they reject God.
-
Simply viewing Apple kit provokes religious euphoria.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/fanboi_brain_study/
-
Is this one of the catholic church's business model?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18946/activist-priest-robert-reyes-says-bishops-got-more-than-pajeros
Activist priest Robert Reyes says bishops got more than Pajeros
By Maricar Cinco
Inquirer Southern Luzon
SAN PEDRO, Laguna—Activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes on Tuesday alleged that a number of Catholic bishops not only got expensive vehicles out of public funds but also benefited in other forms during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
“Not just the Pajeros. She constructed houses (for priests), convents, cathedrals, and gave away cars,” Reyes, a staunch critic of the past administration, said in a phone interview.
-
Is this one of the catholic church's business model?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18946/activist-priest-robert-reyes-says-bishops-got-more-than-pajeros
Activist priest Robert Reyes says bishops got more than Pajeros
By Maricar Cinco
Inquirer Southern Luzon
SAN PEDRO, Laguna—Activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes on Tuesday alleged that a number of Catholic bishops not only got expensive vehicles out of public funds but also benefited in other forms during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
“Not just the Pajeros. She constructed houses (for priests), convents, cathedrals, and gave away cars,” Reyes, a staunch critic of the past administration, said in a phone interview.
If this is true, I'd like to see how Church apologists can wiggle themselves out of this one.
-
Miss USA 2011 - 51 Delegates Interview (Q2 - Evolution taught in school) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be)
Can something be funny and sad at the same time?
-
Just found these groups:
Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS) Official Group
http://patas.co/
Filipino Freethinkers
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ffreethinkers?ap=1
-
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
-
Just saw this thread. Nice read.
I believe in God. I hope I will not be asked to justify my belief.
I also believe that you need not believe in God for you to be saved. We are only humans, I know that God will not judge us merely on our beliefs, but on how we conducted ourselves on the basis thereof.
I respect those who say that they are atheist or agnostics. I have met several already. Some are even my friends. I'd like to think that salvation is also for them.
-
Hey, did anyone watch Filipino atheist Red Thani's interview with Boy Abunda? It's about freakin' time secularists get more face time in the mainstream Filipino media.
-
(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2894202_460s.jpg)
-
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/arutaarmor/PATASGIF.gif)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Patas.co/
-
Been seeing a lot of posts in FB about the Pope's views and tolerance on atheism. Seeing that I agree on some points raised on an article, I reposted one. True enough, a former classmate started posting on my wall about atheists being redeemed but salvation is not for them. So much for tolerance on other people's belief. Buti pa si Pope.
-
Is this the right section to wonder about why we exist and whether there's an afterlife? haha
each time a girl asks me about my belief in the after life, I go all scientific on the girl.
I was raised by my VERY religious lola to go to church every sunday. She never failed to pick me up and bring me and my siblings to church on sundays. At such an early age,however, I already thought that all this religion thing was bogus.
I guess for me, to see is really to believe.
-
A village which does not have religion flourishes. (http://pri.org/stories/2013-12-12/ethiopian-village-has-gained-wealth-has-bred-hostility)
-
Bogus or not, it is in our genes. Literally. Scientists have identified a gene present in all living men that predispose them to believe in a supreme presence.
Throughout the ages, groups of people or tribes who somehow collectively believed in some god or afterlife, better coped to survive and continue the lineage. All living men today can somehow have ancestors that began believing in a supreme being or afterlife.
How this gene gave an advantage is not clear. One can only guess that for example, a man in a dire situation who had hope will do all that he can to get out of it. Or a community with a religion is kept in social order for fear of supernatural punishment. Those without order eventually wiped each other out. There can be many reasons.
-
A village which does not have religion flourishes. (http://pri.org/stories/2013-12-12/ethiopian-village-has-gained-wealth-has-bred-hostility)
The article's argument regarding religion being roadblock in development is a bit too shallow for me. Working all the week's day is not that big of a deal. Besides, its already a safety standard that you have to have a rest day for a proper work-life balance. Although you can increase your output with that, the problem is it would not be sustainable in the long run and is bound to hit burn-out issues. My 2 cents worth.
-
The article did not say that. It simply gave everyday work as one of the reasons it is flourishing. The article was never about the village not having a religion. It was about a man who went out and changed a collective mindset to bring themselves out of poverty. one woman pointed out that they were spiritual.
-
The article did not say that. It simply gave everyday work as one of the reasons it is flourishing. The article was never about the village not having a religion. It was about a man who went out and changed a collective mindset to bring themselves out of poverty. one woman pointed out that they were spiritual.
yes, I'm aware of that, I just spoke out my mind since Klaus just stated that his hyperlink was titled "A village which does not have a religion flourishes". Also, it was about the Sabbath Day that the article attributed to religion. Hence, my comment.
-
Yep. God's a dick. or a drunk. or crazy. maybe all of them.
Before Jesus arrived and his divine father chilled out, the Old Testament God was, ironically, kind of a hellraiser. He was not a nice guy. He really liked killing people. And he may have actually been insane, if his willingness to randomly murder devout worshippers like Moses was any indication. Here are the 12 craziest, most awful things God did in the Old Testament, back before that wacked-out hippie Jesus softened him up.
http://io9.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/ispeak/62086-long-overdue-apostasy?
"I gave unsolicited guidance as a 'believer'; presumptuously doling out Bible verses as if they were freshly-baked cookies... I sincerely apologize to those who had to endure this brief phase when I foolishly fancied myself an evangelist. I honestly wish I could bake you all real cookies."
-
Subscribing ang learning more about the topic.
-
Oh my god if there is a god
Save my soul if i have a soul.
-
Parang mahirap magbasa ng thread nito with my virgin religious beliefs. :-)
-
Tanong lang po paano ba nag-exist ang universe or ang tao?
-
Tanong lang po paano ba nag-exist ang universe or ang tao?
that's what scientists are trying to find out.
-
If it hasn't been quoted yet, allow me:
“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
-
Ano po ba yung missing link? nakita na po ba? ;D ;D ;D
-
In fairness to science pag di pa kayang sagutin sinasabi ng mga scientists na hi di pa nila alam ang sagot for now.
Sa religion pag di kayang sagutin misteryo daw. Trinity is still a mystery.
-
Ano po ba yung missing link? nakita na po ba? ;D ;D ;D
Chinaman daw yun missing link. ;D
joke!
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10346050_778894192141908_5726979822650767450_n.jpg)
-
Christianity is doing the right thing even it is against morality* and religion.
* world's morality
-
how do we really know what is really right and what is really wrong?
-
how do we really know what is really right and what is really wrong?
we can't... human alone can't distuingish the difference between right and wrong... we dont have the ability to determine what is right or wrong... we are only guided on what is acceptable within our society or particular group of people...
-
I walk by faith, not by sight. I who is finite will not try to grasp the infinite, much less exhaust it. I cannot understand it now and the rational mind does not accept it now, because the mind sees only the tangibles. about the intangibles, although i live with a measure of awareness that some things exist in the intangible, seldom do i consider this world in my everyday living, because so much of my existence is defined in the concrete. but faith alone changes that. I do not know what a perfect world will be or should be, but God does. I have God's promise that it will be perfect, that i will be satisfied with it and that nothing will ever come along to destroy that bliss. I, who believe in God, rest in that blessed hope. And i know it will be true because God, in His holy word, has told me so....
skeptics and non believers, with some respect, would be like Moses, seeing the promised-land before dying but never entering into it.
-
In fairness to science pag di pa kayang sagutin sinasabi ng mga scientists na hi di pa nila alam ang sagot for now.
Sa religion pag di kayang sagutin misteryo daw. Trinity is still a mystery.
for me, pag laging sinasabi ng religion mo na misteryo ang mga bagay na di masagot, there's something wrong with that religion. God provides the answers that we need. All we have to do is ask...at syempre samahan ng logical na pagiisip. God is very logical for me. May paliwanag ang lahat. How can someone na Almighty will only leave the unexplained as a mystery? He provides the answers.
And I really believe there is a God. Just look at how our universe was created, it should really, really be chaotic with everything goin on in it, but still, everything is in order. Sa dami daming asteroids, comets and what have you na gumagala sa universe, or even sa galaxy natin, we are still here and alive. As He said, His house is a house of order. Dumating na ko sa point na almost mawala na ang faith ko, but every time I look around, look at nature, look up in the sky...it would really show that there is a Supreme Being managing all of this. There is a God. You might not have a specific religion that you belong to, but I find it really difficult to deny there is a God.
-
for me, pag laging sinasabi ng religion mo na misteryo ang mga bagay na di masagot, there's something wrong with that religion. God provides the answers that we need. All we have to do is ask...at syempre samahan ng logical na pagiisip. God is very logical for me. May paliwanag ang lahat. How can someone na Almighty will only leave the unexplained as a mystery? He provides the answers.
And I really believe there is a God. Just look at how our universe was created, it should really, really be chaotic with everything goin on in it, but still, everything is in order. Sa dami daming asteroids, comets and what have you na gumagala sa universe, or even sa galaxy natin, we are still here and alive. As He said, His house is a house of order. Dumating na ko sa point na almost mawala na ang faith ko, but every time I look around, look at nature, look up in the sky...it would really show that there is a Supreme Being managing all of this. There is a God. You might not have a specific religion that you belong to, but I find it really difficult to deny there is a God.
there may be a higher being or not but i think that if he is out there, i doubt he's like the one in the bible or in the koran.
-
there may be a higher being or not but i think that if he is out there, i doubt he's like the one in the bible or in the koran.
that's interesting bro, ano tingin mo the Supreme being would be like?
-
Ano po ba yung missing link? nakita na po ba? ;D ;D ;D
Hindi daw talaga makita ang missing link. Kasi we were made. Kaya bigla nalang lumitaw ang tao. Similar to what would happen we we cross breed a horse and a donkey which will produce an ass. And yung male and female ass will not reproduce, kasi hybrid sila. Yun daw ang nangyari sa tao. And in order to reproduce, we need an Eve.
-
The atheist are those who do not pray, they just live the way they want. but it seems they have better lives. :-\
-
The atheist are those who do not pray, they just live the way they want. but it seems they have better lives. :-\
They enjoy life because they are not burdened with guilt.
Plus atheists who who do good are better than most christians who do good not for goodness' sake but because they fear the eternal flames of hell.
-
if we all came from one God who created us all and all the flesh we have also came from him and when judgment comes he will be burning those who have sinned, then God will be burning himself? ::)
-
The atheist are those who do not pray, they just live the way they want. but it seems they have better lives. :-\
your pressumption of the blessings of the lord are temporal and physical in nature. if someone believes in life after death and eternal salvation then his stay in this world is just a preparation for his meeting with his creator.
if we all came from one God who created us all and all the flesh we have also came from him and when judgment comes he will be burning those who have sinned, then God will be burning himself? ::)
will just share you a story on how a sadducees question jesus regarding a thing....
Matthew 22:23-33 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
-
the problem is Christians usually post evidences of God using the Bible, a collection of texts which Atheists do not believe in the first place. God when explained to Atheists should be based on materials outside of the Bible after all he should be beyond it as creator of everything.
-
the problem is Christians usually post evidences of God using the Bible, a collection of texts which Atheists do not believe in the first place. God when explained to Atheists should be based on materials outside of the Bible after all he should be beyond it as creator of everything.
so if we are not using the bible then where should we based our faith? non believers have questions regarding a lot of things. from creation to ressurection and even simple death. they asked, we answered! so is there a problem with that? we a not forcing them to believe what the scriptures is saying, and at the end of the day and still they dont believe......then who cares.
-
so if we are not using the bible then where should we based our faith? non believers have questions regarding a lot of things. from creation to ressurection and even simple death. they asked, we answered! so is there a problem with that? we a not forcing them to believe what the scriptures is saying, and at the end of the day and still they will not believe......then who cares.
Documented history?
-
Documented history?
what history sir? and besides you are talking materials ouside the bilble. can you enlighten us about the "some material" that is outside the bible, and the way you explain things to a non believer using materials that is outside of the bible...
-
what history sir? and besides you are talking materials ouside the bilble. can you enlighten us about the "some material" that is outside the bible, and the way you explain things to a non believer using materials that is outside of the bible...
what I mean is are there historical records of events in the Bible that would somehow provide a semblance of them actually happening as documented aside from the Bible?
-
that's interesting bro, ano tingin mo the Supreme being would be like?
That I do not know and doesn't even have the slightest idea. He might be a higher being in a higher plane of existence meaning an entity that exist in extra-dimensional space. We can barely comprehend extra-dimensional space what more a being who exist in that space. As I've said in the other thread, if he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent how could we understand his likeness?
-
what I mean is are there historical records of events in the Bible that would somehow provide a semblance of them actually happening as documented aside from the Bible?
i dont know if some historical data na kasabayan ng bibliya ay merong mga pagkakapareho pero sa tingin ko meron sir. jesus was there during the time of ceasar. so its possible that the events mentioned in the bible are also in the world history writings.
as to my knowledge po regarding faith and belief, ang christian, they believe solely in the bible. sa catholics, it is being taught that good deeds and holy bible should be the way to live your life. sa muslim, koran all the way. cant speak of other religion for i have a limited or no understanding on which they are basing their faith.
-
Hindi daw talaga makita ang missing link. Kasi we were made. Kaya bigla nalang lumitaw ang tao. Similar to what would happen we we cross breed a horse and a donkey which will produce an ass. And yung male and female ass will not reproduce, kasi hybrid sila. Yun daw ang nangyari sa tao. And in order to reproduce, we need an Eve.
Ganon ba nauna pa pala sila nag-EXIST kay Adam and Eve at NAKITA nila yung PANGYAYARI sa creation ng TAO...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
i dont know if some historical data na kasabayan ng bibliya ay merong mga pagkakapareho pero sa tingin ko meron sir. jesus was there during the time of ceasar. so its possible that the events mentioned in the bible are also in the world history writings.
as to my knowledge po regarding faith and belief, ang christian, they believe solely in the bible. sa catholics, it is being taught that good deeds and holy bible should be the way to live your life. sa muslim, koran all the way. cant speak of other religion for i have a limited or no understanding on which they are basing their faith.
That is actually one of the reasons why some do not believe that "jesus happened". Some historians at that time did not mention Jesus or the his crucifixion even Pilate or Herod's records does not mention any reference to him.
-
That is actually one of the reasons why some do not believe that "jesus happened". Some historians at that time did not mention Jesus or the his crucifixion even Pilate or Herod's records does not mention any reference to him.
That is true. Other than the bible, there is no historical data of Jesus' existence.
-
That I do not know and doesn't even have the slightest idea. He might be a higher being in a higher plane of existence meaning an entity that exist in extra-dimensional space. We can barely comprehend extra-dimensional space what more a being who exist in that space. As I've said in the other thread, if he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent how could we understand his likeness?
Now we are talking. ;) Hehe!
-
That is true. Other than the bible, there is no historical data of Jesus' existence.
The time of Jesus Christ came first before the Historian exist....
-
The time of Jesus Christ came first before the Historian exist....
Herodotus lived before JC
-
Herodotus lived before JC
How about the similarity of Jesus with Horus?
-
That is true. Other than the bible, there is no historical data of Jesus' existence.
I'm sure there is. How can you date BC and AD if he didn't exist?
-
Herodotus lived before JC
May naisulat ba sya tungkol kay Jesus Christ?
-
Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus, also called the Christ, was an actual historical figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).
Non-Christian sources (Josephus and Tacitus, mainly) have affirmed that there was a Jesus of Nazareth (or Galilee) crucified in Judea under the procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius (stepson of Augustus Caesar). Of this there is no contestation from historians or scholars.
-
meron atang iron curtain regarding sa nangyari sa buhay ni Jesus... isa lang ang hindi napigilian... the Bible.
-
Religion......
Comedy for the intelligent,
Reality to the ignorant.
-
Religion......
Comedy for the intelligent,
Reality to the ignorant.
if this pertains to how atheism view religion in general, then i myt fall on the latter. but just in case this is true, were do you belong, sir?
-
Sticking to the OP, I'm an agnostic.
But I was raised in a Catholic household and went to a Catholic school. My wife and her family are practicing Catholics. So I'm a bit of a "closet" agnostic :p My wife knows, understands and respects my position. My own family sort of knows - implicitly - but still once in a while tries to gently nudge me back into Catholicism. As for my in-laws, I just try to get along in terms of their religious practices and beliefs just to keep the peace. No harm anyway.
The only point of possible conflict I could see is how our daughter is raised. She's still a young toddler now. Although I fully expect that we will raise her more with a Catholic sense than an agnostic/atheist upbringing. Yet, when she's old enough to form her own thoughts and opinions in the subject, I won't stop her if she chooses to be an agnostic or an atheist.
-
Sticking to the OP, I'm an agnostic.
But I was raised in a Catholic household and went to a Catholic school. My wife and her family are practicing Catholics. So I'm a bit of a "closet" agnostic :p My wife knows, understands and respects my position. My own family sort of knows - implicitly - but still once in a while tries to gently nudge me back into Catholicism. As for my in-laws, I just try to get along in terms of their religious practices and beliefs just to keep the peace. No harm anyway.
The only point of possible conflict I could see is how our daughter is raised. She's still a young toddler now. Although I fully expect that we will raise her more with a Catholic sense than an agnostic/atheist upbringing. Yet, when she's old enough to form her own thoughts and opinions in the subject, I won't stop her if she chooses to be an agnostic or an atheist.
Same position tayo sir as I'm agnostic as well. Sa family ko ganun din. My gf doesn't know as well though I don't know if she knows the concept of agnosticism.
-
meron atang iron curtain regarding sa nangyari sa buhay ni Jesus... isa lang ang hindi napigilian... the Bible.
Not really.
During his time (about 3 to 32 AD) Jesus was not a significant member of society (compared to, say, a senator of Rome, like Brutus or Cicero; or a conquering general, like Hannibal), and therefore, not talked about and recorded in contemporary annals. Even today, there aren't many carpenters from the countryside who make it to the news.
All we know about Jesus, called the Christ, were accounts written decades after his death. This includes the New Testament.
-
Ganon ba nauna pa pala sila nag-EXIST kay Adam and Eve at NAKITA nila yung PANGYAYARI sa creation ng TAO...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes. Ganun nga. Last na ginawa ang tao di ba. Ginawa muna fishes, animals, bago ginawa ang tao. Unless makita ang missing link, yun paniwalaan ko. we were made, or the evolution process was fast tracked. As to who made us, we were made into his likeness, with some likeness of the apes din. Ang end result is man. kaya 97 percent ng chimp DNA, same as man. But the 3 percent matters most.
-
Yes. Ganun nga. Last na ginawa ang tao di ba. Ginawa muna fishes, animals, bago ginawa ang tao. Unless makita ang missing link, yun paniwalaan ko. we were made, or the evolution process was fast tracked. As to who made us, we were made into his likeness, with some likeness of the apes din. Ang end result is man. kaya 97 percent ng chimp DNA, same as man. But the 3 percent matters most.
What's good about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
-
Napanood ko sa TV about experiment sa weight of a dying person. According to the experiment after a person dies, the weight of the body loses 2 ounces.. That was the weight of the soul daw. However it was not validated. Some would like to repeat the experiment, however the catholic church is against the study. Maybe the church knows something that the rest do not know? Because maybe there was no change in weight after all.
-
Napanood ko sa TV about experiment sa weight of a dying person. According to the experiment after a person dies, the weight of the body loses 2 ounces.. That was the weight of the soul daw. However it was not validated. Some would like to repeat the experiment, however the catholic church is against the study. Maybe the church knows something that the rest do not know? Because maybe there was no change in weight after all.
nasa libro ni Dan Brown to. The Lost Symbol
-
It's also where the theme of the film 21 Grams is based on.
-
They enjoy life because they are not burdened with guilt.
Plus atheists who who do good are better than most christians who do good not for goodness' sake but because they fear the eternal flames of hell.
Correct. Or because of the they love to go to heaven. So in the end. Humans are basically selfish, sabi nung isang author. meron lang righteous selfishness, at meron hindi righteous. Kaya if it will be proven walang heaven or walang hell,sa palagay ko mawalan ng members dahil yung fear of hell and love of heaven ang reason bakit sila nag member. I have yet to find a religion that does not preach the fear and the love.
-
What's good about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
i agree.
what i like more about science is that it also reveals God's works.
-
if we all came from one God who created us all and all the flesh we have also came from him and when judgment comes he will be burning those who have sinned, then God will be burning himself? ::)
Hindi kaya we are interpreting God'sa Word in our favor kapag ganyan?
-
Hindi kaya we are interpreting God'sa Word in our favor kapag ganyan?
don master fluffy, what about religions who does the same?
-
don master fluffy, what about religions who does the same?
Yan ang hindi ko alam. Hehe!
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/14/atheists-behaving-badly/#.U-2ix3WwrqB
-
Department of Education to remove the words "God-loving" from it's mission-statement. (http://crosscurrents.ph/nationwatch-deped-removes-god-loving-vision-statement/)
I applaud this measure.
-
Department of Education to remove the words "God-loving" from it's mission-statement. (http://crosscurrents.ph/nationwatch-deped-removes-god-loving-vision-statement/)
I applaud this measure.
me as well. We have a secular government and it's about time they act like one.
-
Paano yun sa mga courts where you are ask to swear and place your hand on top of a bible?
-
Paano yun sa mga courts where you are ask to swear and place your hand on top of a bible?
ewan ko ba dapat di rin ginagawa yun eh. dapat yung kamay sa constitution nilalagay. eh pano kung hindi naman Catholic or Christian yung person?
-
ewan ko ba dapat di rin ginagawa yun eh. dapat yung kamay sa constitution nilalagay. eh pano kung hindi naman Catholic or Christian yung person?
Koran?
-
Koran?
pano kung Scientologist?
-
pano kung Scientologist?
Test tube? ;D
-
pano kung Scientologist?
Dianetics.
-
i agree.
what i like more about science is that it also reveals God's works.
hmm what do you mean God's works sir?
-
Department of Education to remove the words "God-loving" from it's mission-statement. (http://crosscurrents.ph/nationwatch-deped-removes-god-loving-vision-statement/)
I applaud this measure.
It's about time they did this. It's a good start. Marami pa yan...
ewan ko ba dapat di rin ginagawa yun eh. dapat yung kamay sa constitution nilalagay. eh pano kung hindi naman Catholic or Christian yung person?
An oath is not required. What is required is an oath or affirmation.
If you're an atheist, you request that you be allowed to "solemnly affirm" without a bible, instead of "solemnly swear."
There are some Christian sects whose doctrines prohibit swearing, even if it's an oath on the bible (their basis is James 5:12). I've had one born-again witness who refused to take an oath before testifying. In that case, an affirmation is sufficient.
Bale wala naman yang oath na may bible pa kuno. Nagsisinungaling din, e... :D
-
The alternative atheist ten commandments:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
-
The alternative atheist ten commandments:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
I truly agree.
-
Happy Isaac Newton's Day!
-
I can only assume that atheists here will only have civil marriages when they tie the knot?
Kinda pretentious to say one thing and do another thing that opposes this so called firm belief.
If ever one of you guys do have a church wedding, please do tell us the reason why you changed your mind.
Merry Christmas! Oh, sorry if any of you find that greeting offensive.
-
I can only assume that atheists here will only have civil marriages when they tie the knot?
Yes but I believe some of them have their own humanist ministers/chaplains who can legally marry them and a lot of them have their own marriage ceremonies free from God. I think one exception is if they're marrying someone who's religious.
Merry Christmas! Oh, sorry if any of you find that greeting offensive.
Most atheists don't find that greeting offensive.
-
I can only assume that atheists here will only have civil marriages when they tie the knot?
Kinda pretentious to say one thing and do another thing that opposes this so called firm belief.
If ever one of you guys do have a church wedding, please do tell us the reason why you changed your mind.
Merry Christmas! Oh, sorry if any of you find that greeting offensive.
We do whatever we like. We don't care about what others would think.
-
If athesists and agonostics followed these commandments then they'd be better citizens.
(http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/a6d3dA2_700b.jpg)
-
It's just a hodgepodge of poorly written whatnots. A good portion are not even commands, just statements.
-
They dont have 10,000 years to polish the list. At most 10 hrs. :)
-
It's just a hodgepodge of poorly written whatnots. A good portion are not even commands, just statements.
Hence the word non-commandments. You're being too technical just to try to discredit these "ststements". Whatever flaws it has, it's still better and more logical than the Bible than commandments.
-
What is written in the Holy Bible (or any other holy text) allows for our society to be feasible. It isn't perfect and does not make everyone happy but there is no better system out there.
-
What is written in the Holy Bible (or any other holy text) allows for our society to be feasible. It isn't perfect and does not make everyone happy but there is no better system out there.
I'm assuming you're stoning to death people who work on Sundays? What about people who wear cotton and denim? They should be stoned to death as well. Do you think we should kill people who eat bacon?
-
You're referencing the Old Testament and you are out of line.
-
I'm assuming you're stoning to death people who work on Sundays? What about people who wear cotton and denim? They should be stoned to death as well. Do you think we should kill people who eat bacon?
Klaus, context these were written 10,000 years ago. :)
Some people are work-aholics so what better way to make them take a break than breaking their bones? It keeps productivity-obsessed boses from getting 100% productivity from their employees.
As for the mixed textiles it could be related to a time of frugality and simplicity. People who could afford to mix textiles would piss off ppl who can only afford one textile. Remember back then people tended to stay in their clothes months on end vs our daily change for washing we enjoy today. In the Philippines we have a similar law but I cannot remember what it is right now.
Pork aint good for you. And food sanitation was non-existent so if you eat something that wallowed in its own filth then it becomes a health care concern for the community. If tapeworm wont get you then cholesterol will.
It is like the religious hell bent stance on pre-marital sex. A few millennia before kids who started to bleed or produce sperm were married off immediately so there was no wiggle room for pre-marital sex. You were either a "child" or an "adult". Teenage years only became fashionable in the last few centuries because of lengthening lifespans. A talk about population growth showed that people on average lived to their early 30s and by that time you were a grandparent.
Ever wondered how old the Virgin Mary was when she had Jesus Christ? Chances are (and this will piss off a lot of religious) she was in her teens.
Again, a lot of the things written in holy texts must be framed in the situations of when it was written. These were effective in making societies thrive to this day.
Like say homosexuality... go back to a time when medical technology was pang-hihilot and agriculture was wholly dependent on the seasons and people not producing offsprings becomes a problem when the average person dies by their 30s. Today with people living to their 70s, 80s, 90s and 100s and so long as you have money you can buy cheap calories and an upset stomach can be solved with some pills then overpopulation becomes an issues.
rascal, there are peoples who still practice the Old Testament.
In the time where literacy and education was only for the learned few forces people to take brutal (by our standards) approaches to keep society solvent.
This is a reason why I don't attend Holy Mass even though I still consider myself a Roman Catholic.
-
You're referencing the Old Testament and you are out of line.
why?
i always scratch my head when referencing the Old Testament on the flaws of the Bible and Christians/Catholics are quick to point out saying "It's the Old Testament". it is still part of the same Bible that they reference and use as guidance. Pero pag may argument regarding Evolution/Creationism mabilis din nilang i-point out na word of God yung sa Genesis kaya tama ang Creationism. ???
-
The alternative atheist ten commandments:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Despite being a roman catholic myself, i also do not see any harm in welcoming these statements and acting in accordnce to them. A religious person might have issues with how the 5th statement is 'stated'. Personal morals na yun eh. And i dont think religion nor god should be the source of all morals in life.
-
Despite being a roman catholic myself, i also do not see any harm in welcoming these statements and acting in accordnce to them. A religious person might have issues with how the 5th statement is 'stated'. Personal morals na yun eh. And i dont think religion nor god should be the source of all morals in life.
Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Laguna
-
^
im sorry???
-
^
im sorry???
An intensely religious person whose morals are with him in Bilibid.
Religious leaders (not just Roman Catholic priests) that fornicate or go after minors. These are deeply religious people.
-
why?
i always scratch my head when referencing the Old Testament on the flaws of the Bible and Christians/Catholics are quick to point out saying "It's the Old Testament". it is still part of the same Bible that they reference and use as guidance. Pero pag may argument regarding Evolution/Creationism mabilis din nilang i-point out na word of God yung sa Genesis kaya tama ang Creationism. ???
that Law created for Israel not for Gentiles like us...
also as of this moment, we're not under the law anymore we are now under grace... we're not living by law but by grace and by faith...
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came
by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17)
-
Well, sya yun.
The way he acts according to his morals and the way i act on mine are two totally different stories.
The analogy is severely flawed.
-
anong moral ang sinusunod ng atheist or agnostic?
hanggat walang nasasaktan na ibang tao? or nasisirang bagay? di dapat ginagawa?
-
anong moral ang sinusunod ng atheist or agnostic?
hanggat walang nasasaktan na ibang tao? or nasisirang bagay? di dapat ginagawa?
those ten "statements" should answer your question. being religious does not equate to being a good person.
-
that Law created for Israel not for Gentiles like us...
There's a big hurdle for Gentiles to follow the OT. Namely circumcision which is mandated for all Jews & Muslims.
For a time circumcision was considered mutilation by the Roman Catholic Church but in recent times they're largely neutral.
Which brings me to this question... why are Filipinos so into circumcision? A lot of people say because of "religion" but these Catholics appear to be unaware about the RCC's early and current stance on the subject.
-
those ten "statements" should answer your question. being religious does not equate to being a good person.
yup... you are right... being religious does not equate to being a good person... but how we define "good person"...
ano standard ng isang atheist para matawag ang isang tao na "good person"? dabat ba evolutionist? dapat ba pro SSM?
-
Which brings me to this question... why are Filipinos so into circumcision? A lot of people say because of "religion" but these Catholics appear to be unaware about the RCC's early and current stance on the subject.
for me it's not anymore about religion but more of a right of passage for young males. and also the basic human nature to conform to social conventions. pag hindi ka kasi tuli aasarin ka na supot which at this time and age is wrong.
-
yup... you are right... being religious does not equate to being a good person... but how we define "good person"...
ano standard ng isang atheist para matawag ang isang tao na "good person"? dabat ba evolutionist? dapat ba pro SSM?
again, those statements above should be a good place to start.
-
again, those statements above should be a good place to start.
ah ok... that explains why... :)
kung lahat ng atheist sinusunod lang yan... mas sasaya pa ang ating mundo...
-
for me it's not anymore about religion but more of a right of passage for young males. and also the basic human nature to conform to social conventions. pag hindi ka kasi tuli aasarin ka na supot which at this time and age is wrong.
What is the origins of it though? Religion is always referenced when circumcision is being mentioned.
Cannot be the Spaniards because they hate Moros during Magellan's time.
We have to remember that for the conservative the belief (more like fear) in a God/Gods is their foundation of being a good person. It keeps people restrained/limited in action.
Imagine if Filipinos not living on minimum wage or worse all of a sudden not being religious. Nothing will prevent them from pillaging your home filled with obsolete VHS, Betamax, VCD and DVDs.
-
An intensely religious person whose morals are with him in Bilibid.
Religious leaders (not just Roman Catholic priests) that fornicate or go after minors. These are deeply religious people.
People are in jail because of their crimes. It is not only Catholic people but all kinds of people are there. Fact is even people who do not commit crimes go to jail. Jail is just a destination or a place or a location.
There are many immoral acts committed by both good and bad people. This is normal. So, what is your point?
-
Notice my mentioning of "religious person" and not singling out and even emphasising that it isnt just Roman Catholic priests.
Statically speaking more than 86% of inmates will probably be Roman Catholic in Philippine jails. Not because they're Roman Catholic but because we are so many.
Isn't doing immoral act make the person "bad"? Or are morals dependent on the standards of the society the person chooses to belong to?
My point is being religious or non-religious should not be a basis of being good or bad. Your actions & inactions are.
People are in jail because of their crimes. It is not only Catholic people but all kinds of people are there. Fact is even people who do not commit crimes go to jail. Jail is just a destination or a place or a location.
There are many immoral acts committed by both good and bad people. This is normal. So, what is your point?
-
People are in jail because of their crimes. It is not only Catholic people but all kinds of people are there. Fact is even people who do not commit crimes go to jail. Jail is just a destination or a place or a location.
There are many immoral acts committed by both good and bad people. This is normal. So, what is your point?
Notice my mentioning of "religious person" and not singling out and even emphasising that it isnt just Roman Catholic priests.
Statically speaking more than 86% of inmates will probably be Roman Catholic in Philippine jails. Not because they're Roman Catholic but because we are so many.
Isn't doing immoral act make the person "bad"? Or are morals dependent on the standards of the society the person chooses to belong to?
My point is being religious or non-religious should not be a basis of being good or bad. Your actions & inactions are.
Question guys, what's your take on humans, like us, being palaging nagkakasala, or palaging may maling nagagawa, meaning hindi tayo perfect individuals. Would you agree?
-
My take is that what people perceive as a sin, a crime or an immorality is wholly dependent on the society you grew up in and where you currently live in.
Say, if a German who grew up in Germany came over to the Philippines they will find it odd that prostitution is a crime. Depending on how he was brought up they can see it as an immorality or even sin.
This is why the CBCP keeps harping about the evils of the West and the sanctity of Filipino Roman Catholicism. For those shortsighted this does not strike as ironic but for those who are students of history will know that the Spaniards came from the West. :)
As it is right now a belief system is a system to make persons within the belief or society able to function as a whole. Yes, there are gaps but these would be wider if there was no system.
You must always look at beliefs from their origin point in time to fully appreciate what they wanted to do back then.
Many are unaware that deviating from said belief system can mean the town or city collapsing and everyone not surviving the next famine. That's why homosexuals were condemned because they did not reproduce and probably have very unsanitary habits that had no solutions because sanitation wasn't invented yet.
Same goes with the Islamic & Jewish dietary laws of halal & kosher. Christians do not have this because who would want to join a religion in which you can't eat lechon or bacon? Sarap sila, diba? ;) Can you imagine life without your beloved San Miguel Beer? People may end up joining satanism if they are denied their kinasanayan.
Even Pope Francis said in 2013 that atheists can go to heaven so long as they do good works. Because he is the Pope it probably means by Roman Catholic definition of "good works".
Today's world needs more people of "good works" and less religious people. Being a fundamentalist/conservative of any belief system just results in stupid holy wars where the participants expect heaven/bliss from committing atrocities to the non-believers.
-
without God's law no one can specifically separate what is right or wrong...
My take is that what people perceive as a sin, a crime or an immorality is wholly dependent on the society you grew up in and where you currently live in.
this is the very reason why we need standard... a very good reason why God created detailed instruction for His beloved Israel to protect from influence of what we called non-believers sa panahon na iyon...
pero may mga tao ngayon na lagi pa ring nagrereference sa mga batas na para lang sa israel...
"Love your God and your neigbour" - the summation of ten commandments seems easy but in reality is very difficult to obey than ten commandments.
if all people obey this command meron sana tayong mas maayos na mundo...
-
without God's law no one can specifically separate what is right or wrong...
this is the very reason why we need standard... a very good reason why God created detailed instruction for His beloved Israel to protect from influence of what we called non-believers sa panahon na iyon...
pero may mga tao ngayon na lagi pa ring nagrereference sa mga batas na para lang sa israel...
"Love your God and your neigbour" - the summation of ten commandments seems easy but in reality is very difficult to obey than ten commandments.
if all people obey this command meron sana tayong mas maayos na mundo...
Whose God? The Christian God? The Islamic God? The Jewish God? The Gods of the Hindus?
You are referencing the 10 Commandments, a set of laws meant for the Jews but also adopted by other belief system then do we follow all Jewish laws?
If these Jews-only laws are only for the Jews then why not edit them out and avoid confusion?
Eh di bawal ang dinuguan
Eh di bawal ang cheese burger
Our OFWs would be in violation for being in a town where their God is not being worshipped.
Should slavery still exist? The very existence is regulated in the NT & OT.
This is found in the NT of all places
Should women keep their mouths kept shut in church?
Times have changed and with it what is applicable and enforced.
If the Jewish laws are good for the Chosen People of God eh di it should be good enough for those who accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour.
And lest we forget Jesus Christ is not a Christian but a Jew.
Bring me back to my question....
How old was Mother Mary when she gave birth to Jesus Christ? :)
I really doubt full compliance of the laws of God will make our world any better. It may make society work but it will yield a lot of unhappy people.
Be like Pope Francis... "do good works" and you're square.
I don't do Simbang Gabi as the practice's origins was a compromise for farmers. Di naman ako magsasaka. ;)
-
Whose God? The Christian God? The Islamic God? The Jewish God? The Gods of the Hindus?
You are referencing the 10 Commandments, a set of laws meant for the Jews but also adopted by other belief system then do we follow all Jewish laws?
If these Jews-only laws are only for the Jews then why not edit them out and avoid confusion?
Eh di bawal ang dinuguan
Eh di bawal ang cheese burger
Our OFWs would be in violation for being in a town where their God is not being worshipped.
Should slavery still exist? The very existence is regulated in the NT & OT.
This is found in the NT of all places
Should women keep their mouths kept shut in church?
Times have changed and with it what is applicable and enforced.
If the Jewish laws are good for the Chosen People of God eh di it should be good enough for those who accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour.
And lest we forget Jesus Christ is not a Christian but a Jew.
Bring me back to my question....
How old was Mother Mary when she gave birth to Jesus Christ? :)
I really doubt full compliance of the laws of God will make our world any better. It may make society work but it will yield a lot of unhappy people.
Be like Pope Francis... "do good works" and you're square.
I don't do Simbang Gabi as the practice's origins was a compromise for farmers. Di naman ako magsasaka. ;)
jews law ended... we are now under age of grace... the law exists to show us that we are not capable of doing good...
eat specific food? nah... Jesus said it doesnt matter what kind/type of food ang kainin natin...
Pope said "go good works" ???
do good works? what is good works? how do we define good works? in other countries... killing in the name of their god is good... in some countries having multiple wives is good... in some having multiple sex partner is good... some of us here believe that having sex with same gender is good... how do we define good? are you telling us here that being good is relative?
if i want to kill ill just go to a place where killing is considered good...? or if i want to marry a second wife magpapaconvert lang ako sa ibang religion where multiple wives is allowed?
the law exists to show us gaano tayo karebelde sa mata ng Diyos at sa mata ng tao/govt... these laws (civil, mosaic law, new covenant law, etc) exists to let us know that we all come short to being a "good person"
-
Pastor who gives up God for a year concludes God probably doesn't exist. (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/pastor_gives_up_god_for_a_year_concludes_i_don_t_think_that_god_exists)
This particular passage is telling:
"I think there are much more important issues to be focused on - things that are really threatening our society while we're worried about what's going to happen about after we die, when in reality, no one of us knows what's going to happen to us after we die. But what we do know is that if we don't do something about the immediate challenges that we're facing today, we're going to die a lot sooner (laughter) than we might otherwise."
Which is what is my problem with a lot of super conservative religious people. They always think too much about heaven and the afterlife, but they do little with the actual life they're given.
-
Malaki ang kaibahan ng isang true Christian at ng professing christian :)
Meron ding taong nagsasabing atheist siya but deep within his/her heart longing for his/her God... :):):)
-
Malaki ang kaibahan ng isang true Christian at ng professing christian :)
Meron ding taong nagsasabing atheist siya but deep within his/her heart longing for his/her God... :):):)
Eto proven na ito.
-
Meron ding taong nagsasabing atheist siya but deep within his/her heart longing for his/her God... :) :) :)
Sa akin naman, walang problema ang atheism per se. Kung ang paniniwala niya ay walang Diyos, OK lang yon.
Ang problema ko talaga ay yung usong atheism ngayon --- the arrogance of the new atheists.
It's not enough for them to declare their atheism. They just have to proclaim intellectual superiority over the stupid theists at every turn.
How atheists became the most colossally
smug and annoying people on the planet
By Brendan O'Neill
Religion
Last updated: August 14th, 2013
... Surely there was a time when you could say to someone "I am an atheist" without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, "Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?" Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes.
... This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn't stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, "See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls."
Atheists online are forever sharing memes about how stupid religious people are. I know this because some of my best Facebook friends are atheists. There's even a website called Atheist Meme Base, whose most popular tags tell you everything you need to know about it and about the kind of people who borrow its memes to proselytise about godlessness to the ignorant: "indoctrination", "Christians", "funny", "hell", "misogyny", "scumbag God", "logic". Atheists in the public sphere spend their every tragic waking hour doing little more than mocking the faithful. In the words of Robin Wright, they seem determined “to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers”. To that end if you ever have the misfortune, as I once did, to step foot into an atheistic get-together, which are now common occurrences in the Western world, patronised by people afflicted with repetitive strain injury from so furiously patting themselves on the back for being clever, you will witness unprecedented levels of intellectual smugness and hostility towards hoi polloi.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/)
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uPqqp8KVuQU/mqdefault.jpg)
Richard Dawkins: "Mock them. Ridicule them. In public ... with contempt.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU)
A Rally Without Faith
Charlie Spiering
March 27, 2012
...Saturday, secular atheists met in Washington D.C. for a rally billed as “the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history.” Organizers insisted prior to the event that the rally was to encourage each other, to dispel stereotypes, and seek “legislative equality.”
But as gloomy rain clouds hung low over the Washington Monument, the rally quickly degenerated into open mockery of religion and people of faith.
“F— the motherf—-, f— the mother—- pope,” sang Musician Tim Minchin as he played profane songs on the piano for a laughing and cheering crowd.
... As the event continued, it became clear that the leaders of the movement were not clamoring for equality, but rather superiority.
“When it comes to religion, we’re not two sides of the same coin and you don’t get to put your unreason on the same shelf as my reason,” HBO’s Liberal comedian Bill Maher said to the crowd via a video monitor. “Your stuff has to go over there on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kracken.”
... Saturday’s rally provided a rare look into the secularism that is pushing its way into the public square.
The speakers that drew the loudest applause were not the people who praised reason, but persecuted faith. Unchallenged and in like-minded company, the cultural and political leaders of the atheist movement freely mocked and dismissed people of faith.
The brash superiority preached by atheists such as Dawkins shows that they are not content with a right to “unreligious freedom,” but seek suppression of religious expression.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/a-rally-without-faith (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/a-rally-without-faith)
-
I think anyone who belittles others' belief system is anti-social.
But the question is what came first? A belief in a God/Gods or no God/Gods?
Who did the belittling or persecuting first? Who has executed whom?
The thing with Pope Francis is he says that what is important for non-believers is that they do "good works".
I tell the atheists/agnostics that I know that if all of a sudden everyone switches to their sides a lot of suicides will happen and society as we know it would collapse as the fear of God/Gods is the only thing keeping a lot of Pinoys in line.
I am also glad that most Pinoys are into mainstream religions as at least they are somewhat predictable.
As for Richard Dawkins he's just doing it in compliance with Exodus 21:24. Not so long ago believers stone people to death for blasphemy. Those unlucky were burned at the stake.
-
^it's still happening in most parts of the world....
-
Dawkins, Bin Laden, and the Little Honey Pot
By Ilisha on November 11, 2013
in Feature, Loon People
... In the summer of 2011, Rebecca Watson found herself alone in an elevator with a man at an atheist convention. The man propositioned her, and the encounter made her uncomfortable. She decided to use the incident as an example of how not to behave at a public event, where she believed women were entitled to feel safe and comfortable.
Richard Dawkins thought her complaint was petty, so he publicly ridiculed her. Watson is a fellow atheist, but for Dawkins, apparently anything objectionable is all about religion, even when it’s not. So he ridiculed Watson’s concerns by belittling her, and simultaneously insulting Muslims:
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so …
Rebecca Watson was not amused.
But the torment didn’t end with Dawkins’ condescending Dear Muslima taunt. His apparent fans picked up the torch and began a campaign of relentless harassment:
Dawkins’ seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape “jokes,” threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page…
A man planning to attend an upcoming conference with Rebecca Watson even threatened to assault her, stating on Twitter that if he saw her on an elevator, he would “cop a feel.” Watson wrote about her disappointment at the sexism and harassment coming from what she referred to as the “skeptic community.”
... Once again, evidence atheism does not make one immune to sexism, hypocrisy, or any of the other human flaws Dawkins often attributes to the faithful.
=====================================
Despite his dismissal of Watson’s concerns as petty, it seems Richard Dawkins is not above pettiness himself, on matters far more trivial than sexual harassment.
Despite knowing it was against the rules, he apparently tried to smuggle a little jar of honey onto flight from Edinburgh to Heathrow. The honey was confiscated and discarded, prompting Dawkins to Tweet his consternation:
Bin Laden has won, in airports of the world every day. I had a little jar of honey, now thrown away by rule-bound dundridges. STUPID waste.
Yes, Osama Bin Laden has won. The singular goal of his existence was clearly to deprive the very bitter Richard Dawkins of his sweet little jar of honey. And to make us have to take our shoes off every time we go through airport security. He wins. Every. Day.
One of the world’s foremost evolutionary biologists was trifling over a little jar of honey. Instead of rallying troops to his campaign as he had with Watson a couple of years back, he was subjected to ridicule...
... Maybe it’s time to write Dawkins a letter that starts out something like this: “Dear Brother Dawkins, stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, we know you had your little jar of honey confiscated….”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/11/dawkins-bin-laden-and-the-little-honey-pot/ (http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/11/dawkins-bin-laden-and-the-little-honey-pot/)
-
I am also glad that most Pinoys are into mainstream religions as at least they are somewhat predictable.
I think that's how a lot of our corrupt government officials think as well. Being religious makes us subservient to authority and making a lot of us unable to think critically and openly. That's why it took us more than 300 years to kick out the Spaniards.
-
I think that's how a lot of our corrupt government officials think as well. Being religious makes us subservient to authority and making a lot of us unable to think critically and openly. That's why it took us more than 300 years to kick out the Spaniards.
And how long before anyone had the balls to kick out Marcos? Cardinal Sin had to intervene. That is why CBCP is so bold to dictate policy on the country. Without them Cory would be nothing. This is very true as professors of a prominent grad school recommended it to her govt during all the coups she had to endure.
But hey, it makes our society a great source for OFWs.
Always a follower, rarely a leader when it comes to seafarers. (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-strange-sexual-quirk-of-filipino-seafarers/278285/)
-
ang hindi ko lang maintindihan sa pananaw ng walang dyos ng eh bakit parang ang hirap nilang paniwalain sa batas ng diyos na hindi naman ikapapahamak ng sumusunod dito. bagkus ay baka naturuan pa sya nitong maging isang mabuting tao! eh samantalang sila naman ay sumusunod sa batas ng estado na kanilang kinabinilangan na mas matindi pa nga ang pisikal na parusa kumpara sa pataw na parusa ng ibat ibang relihiyon......
I think that's how a lot of our corrupt government officials think as well. Being religious makes us subservient to authority and making a lot of us unable to think critically and openly. That's why it took us more than 300 years to kick out the Spaniards.
by being atheist doesnt necessarily follow that your can be an open or critical thinker, you can be shallow and dumb too. and kicking out someone powerful has nothing to to with being critical, it is was you called bravery!
-
Jesus Christ is portrayed as "The Good Shepherd" and his followers are collectively often referred to as a "flock".
Flocks are often populated by sheep.
Sheeps arent known for bravery but obedient followers. Blind faith is often promoted.
Hence the rise of the term "Doubting Thomas" as a negative amongst the followers.
In contrast to the Islamic belief system that promotes jihad when their belief system/way of life is in peril.
Again, I'm not against people being obedient sheep. It allows us black sheep to pull ahead in society as there is less competition on resources and opportunities.
Yes, it's true that there are non-believers who are no better. Education is key.
ang hindi ko lang maintindihan sa pananaw ng walang dyos ng eh bakit parang ang hirap nilang paniwalain sa batas ng diyos na hindi naman ikapapahamak ng sumusunod dito. bagkus ay baka naturuan pa sya nitong maging isang mabuting tao! eh samantalang sila naman ay sumusunod sa batas ng estado na kanilang kinabinilangan na mas matindi pa nga ang pisikal na parusa kumpara sa pataw na parusa ng ibat ibang relihiyon......
by being atheist doesnt necessarily follow that your can be an open or critical thinker, you can be shallow and dumb too. and kicking out someone powerful has nothing to to with being critical, it is was you called bravery!
-
Again, I'm not against people being obedient sheep. It allows us black sheep to pull ahead in society as there is less competition on resources and opportunities.
you mean worldy resources/oppurtunities? or of with spritual/heavenly values?
Jesus Christ is portrayed as "The Good Shepherd" and his followers are collectively often referred to as a "flock".
Flocks are often populated by sheep.
Sheeps arent known for bravery but obedient followers. Blind faith is often promoted.
Hence the rise of the term "Doubting Thomas" as a negative amongst the followers.
As far as I know, hindi pa ako nakakita ng true Christian na duwag? One characteristic or attributes ng isang true Christian is bravery...
Moses who bravely face the Pharaoh, Jesus bravely face His own death, Daniel never kneels to idol kahit na utos ng hari and then face the Lion, David fought Goliath kahit higante nakalaban niya, a missionary sa bansang China or other communist country, true Christians persecuted both by catholic and protestants endured tortures pero hindi nila nideny ang faith nila...
i believe those who are in doubt ay ang mga duwag...
as we can see those who are afraid of hell and punishment are those who are always in doubt and mga duwag... ex. eto ang mga taong madaling magpakamatay... doesnt have enough courage/brave to face the reality of life kasi wala silang pinanghahawakang pangako... sila ang mga taong dahil sa takot sa impiyerno/punishment ang mga taong mapamahiin at super religioius... :):):)
Jesus' true followers or as i called them true Christian cannot be compared to ordinary sheep... sila ang mga extraordinary sheep redeemed by the blood of their own Shepherd... sila ang mga sheeps who walks in the midst of wolves... never call God's sheeps coward...
-
FYI, dpogs, Moses and Jesus were not Christians.
-
Again, I'm not against people being obedient sheep. It allows us black sheep to pull ahead in society as there is less competition on resources and opportunities.
Yes, it's true that there are non-believers who are no better. Education is key.
pulling ahead in terms of what sir? are you saying that you can be better in everything if you dont have a religion?
btw, what im asking po, eh ano ang ikakasama namin sa pagsunod sa batas ng diyos? what are the laws of god that may be considered detrimental sa existence ng believers sa mundong ito?
Sheeps arent known for bravery but obedient followers. Blind faith is often promoted.
youve taken the bravery thing in a different context sir. anyway, what makes you more brave than us? not on the religious side of life, but in the real world?
-
FYI, dpogs, Moses and Jesus were not Christians.
you're right there... Jesus is not a sheep... He's a shepherd :)
though Moses and old testament characters... i may call them Christian kahit na sa panahon ng Apostles pa nabuo ang word na Christian... since old and new testaments books speaks the same theme - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
all God's children, old and new testament, i may refer to them as God's sheep...
-
" if atheism is favored by science, evidence and reason, why is it such at a disadvantage against religious beliefs that often comes with credulity? The biggest word that comes to my mind when I think about this question is arrogance. As long as arrogance lingers amongst the vocal proponents of atheism, I just do not see it prospering despite the feeding programs, conventions, public debates and media mileage etc etc.
Ever heard of Salmoneus? In Greek mythology, Salmoneus was a prince who led a group of colonists to the Peloponesse and established the kingdom of Salmonia in the region later known as Pylos or western Messenia. Salmoneus was an arrogant and impious man who commanded his people worship him as the god Zeus. He impersonated the divinity by driving around in a chariot dragging bronze kettles to make thunder, and casting torches in the air for lightning. Zeus was angered and struck Salmoneus dead with a thunderbolt and laid waste to his city.
Here is another good mythical story.
A long time ago the whole earth had one language, and the same words. One day the people found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. The people said one to another, come on, let us make bricks, and burn [them] thoroughly! And they had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. Then they said, Come on, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, the top of which [may reach] to the heavens; and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth!
Then God came down to see the city and the tower which the people built. God said, behold, the people is one, and have all one language; and this have they begun to do. And now will they be hindered in nothing that they meditate doing. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
And God scattered them thence over the face of the whole earth.
The story of Salmoneus and the Tower of Babel has one thing in common, they both teach us the folly of arrogance. The story of the Tower of Babel also shows man's need to erect symbols of his achievement. When the people built the tower, it wasnt built for God but a monument to themselves. Their intention was to reach heaven with it and proclaim themselves gods.
Some may ask: Why was there a need for an omnipotent god to confound the people's language? Was God so insecure of Himself that He felt threatened by the tower being erected by the people? No, it wasn't about God's insecurity. The biblical mythology already depicts that the tower was never a threat to God. There was never any chance that it could actually reach heaven. In the story's case, it's not actually the deed (building the tower) that was the problem; it was the attitude of the people. The Babylonians were arrogant believing themselves to be all-Powerful. We don't have to look far to see similar arrogance in organizations and folks with atheist leanings.
if we notice the atheist approach and especially when they refuse to rationalize their own arguments and perspectives to the same kind of critical assessments that they demand of theists, their sincerity comes into question. In other words, when one spends so much time in a prolonged debate with one or more of these types of self-professed atheists, it becomes very apparent that there is absolutely no real desire to engage in a balanced, open, and reasonable discussion with theists. They express no desire to actually learn about what theists believe. Instead, they continually articulate the same old straw man arguments emphasizing their stereotypical characterization of theists (e.g. Christians) because it makes it easy for them to justify their rejection and in some cases, hatred of theists. A polemic built on intellectual laziness.
How different would the assertion: “I do not believe a deity exists” be from “I believe a deity does not exist.”? This splitting of hair is what self-professing atheists use to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof for their position (denial of the existence of God).
If atheism is simply the “lack of belief” in God, that self-professing atheists just don’t make any claims about God and that they don’t make any God postulates or that they simply don’t take God seriously, that is okay. But if one is to make a claim, such as “God DOES NOT exist” or “God IS inexistent” or god is a delusional or merely an imaginary product, then the claimant also has the burden of proof for the claim(s). Self-professing atheists who make such claims deny that God exists while, at the same time, deny that they have a burden of proof. they want theists to prove their belief in God, but they don’t want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while severely criticizing theists for failing to do the same. And if I may add, demanding that theists step out of their cocoon in order to meet the atheist mindset. Well, that is called hypocrisy and if I may add, arrogance as well.
Dont get me wrong, I do agree that theism ought to be subjected to critique but atheism should not be about knocking down straw man in its critical analysis of theism. Projecting theists as merely non-thinking coddlers of an imaginary being to suggest more credibility to the atheist position is revolting and bone chilling at its very core. For thousands of years, religious belief has been accompanied by thought and intellectual discovery. In addition, projecting that theists are primarily driven by their own selfish motivation for salvation is smacking of ignorance and lack of empathy. Self-professing atheists who make such derogatory projections of theists do not do any service to atheism by characterizing people (a lot who are sincere in their goodwill intentions) that way. Again, this attitude comes across as a bit arrogant and characterizing faith as something only idiots would attach themselves to wont help atheism's case and cause.
A lot of self-professed atheists assert that theists are delusional. A lot of self-professed atheists seem to condemn theism because of its past record of having caused too many atrocities and that it deals with ridiculous life experience questions. But on the same token, self-professed atheists are being delusional as well if they think they can kill theism simply by exposing theism's folly.
I agree that religious zeal in the past has resulted in many atrocities and unimaginable terror ,the Crusades and the Inquisition immediately come to mind. However, atrocities and terror are not specific to religious inclinations! In the Enlightenment period, the proponents of anti-religion insisted that the universe and human nature could be understood and controlled by the rational mind. They saw the universe was ruled exclusively by consistent laws such as Newton's law of gravity. Such laws can be explained mathematically or scientifically. The Enlightenment empowered those who argued that superstition, blind instinct and ignorance had to be eradicated. Immanuel Kant, in anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View asserted that Africans were inherently predisposed to slavery. The Enlightenment gave the world the scientific racism adopted as an ideological reason for murder by 19th and 20th century despots. Those who could not be educated and reformed, radical Enlightenment thinkers began to argue, should be eliminated so they could no longer poison human society. The Jacobins who seized control during the French Revolution were among the first in a long line of totalitarian monsters who justified murder by invoking supposedly enlightened ideals. Again, many lives were devastated from the roots of arrogance and powerlust.
Mythology and even history seem to teach us that whenever we try to put ourselves on the throne, we seem to suffer for it. Dont get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with achieving great things. There is nothing wrong with trying to do the best one can do and strive for a little more. These things are not bad, its when we use them to define who we are and show others how special we are that these things become personal towers of Babel. Its the attitude, not the tower that is the problem.
It seems to me that organizations with inclinations to atheism are tools serving as the personal Tower of Babel of many atheists in the country. While it is true that many of the members are intelligent and articulate individuals and while it is true that a lot of them have embarked on admirable pursuits such as social activism and community support programs, a lot of them still seem to be unable to recognize that genuine honor and respect are not gained through noise and mere dole-outs and bragging of one's intellect while undermining others. Much like Salmoneus, they wont gain respect by driving around in a chariot dragging bronze kettles to make thunder, and casting torches in the air for lightning. As long as arrogance dominates the attitude of proponents of atheism, I think atheism womt succeed."
exerpt from the writing of : hec gamboa
-
you mean worldy resources/oppurtunities? or of with spritual/heavenly values?
As far as I know, hindi pa ako nakakita ng true Christian na duwag? One characteristic or attributes ng isang true Christian is bravery...
Moses who bravely face the Pharaoh, Jesus bravely face His own death, Daniel never kneels to idol kahit na utos ng hari and then face the Lion, David fought Goliath kahit higante nakalaban niya, a missionary sa bansang China or other communist country, true Christians persecuted both by catholic and protestants endured tortures pero hindi nila nideny ang faith nila...
i believe those who are in doubt ay ang mga duwag...
as we can see those who are afraid of hell and punishment are those who are always in doubt and mga duwag... ex. eto ang mga taong madaling magpakamatay... doesnt have enough courage/brave to face the reality of life kasi wala silang pinanghahawakang pangako... sila ang mga taong dahil sa takot sa impiyerno/punishment ang mga taong mapamahiin at super religioius... :):):)
Jesus' true followers or as i called them true Christian cannot be compared to ordinary sheep... sila ang mga extraordinary sheep redeemed by the blood of their own Shepherd... sila ang mga sheeps who walks in the midst of wolves... never call God's sheeps coward...
Still obsessed with the afterlife and not on this mortal plane? :)
Christians (the conservative/fundamentalist types) are largely subservient. They will be brave upon being called on but it is not their natural state unless it jeopardises their target of heaven.
Please, OT is different from NT. Unless you want to reverse yourself on that.
300+ years of Spanish Christian Rule for the Luzon and Visayas and 0+ years for Mindanao.
21+ years of Marcos until Cardinal Sin stepped in.
Subservient, blindly subservient.
pulling ahead in terms of what sir? are you saying that you can be better in everything if you dont have a religion?
btw, what im asking po, eh ano ang ikakasama namin sa pagsunod sa batas ng diyos? what are the laws of god that may be considered detrimental sa existence ng believers sa mundong ito?
youve taken the bravery thing in a different context sir. anyway, what makes you more brave than us? not on the religious side of life, but in the real world?
My standards are different from your standards. What you see as materialism & thus by default "sin" is a necessity unless hangang tulo laway lang ako at ingit. Not to mention medical care is f-ing expensive so those who lived simply tend to perish simply as medical care is out of reach. Which is OK lang cause the meek will inherit the earth.
A lot of successful people such as Jobs, Gates, Vanderbilt, Sy, Tan, Rothschild & Morgan did not allow a belief system shackle their success. One can say they will all heading to Satan. These types of people are the reason why Exodus 20:8 had to be stated.
And all I am saying is that Pope Francis got it right when he said what is important is good works. If is it in parallel to God's Law (as defined by the Christian faith) then good for them.
What the current Pope has down and I am all for is the change of tack of the belief. Rather than being obsessed with condoms, morning after pills, gays, lesbians and any other sort of "depravity" he is moving it forward to the core mission mercy and compassion for the poor.
If Christians today were as illiterate as those before the printing press than the obsession with the fags and sexual prophylactics would fly kaso almost everyone is literate and can see what overpopulation can do in given biosphere.
-
Still obsessed with the afterlife and not on this mortal plane? :)
Christians (the conservative/fundamentalist types) are largely subservient. They will be brave upon being called on but it is not their natural state unless it jeopardises their target of heaven.
Please, OT is different from NT. Unless you want to reverse yourself on that.
300+ years of Spanish Christian Rule for the Luzon and Visayas and 0+ years for Mindanao.
21+ years of Marcos until Cardinal Sin stepped in.
Subservient, blindly subservient.My standards are different from your standards. What you see as materialism & thus by default "sin" is a necessity unless hangang tulo laway lang ako at ingit. Not to mention medical care is f-ing expensive so those who lived simply tend to perish simply as medical care is out of reach. Which is OK lang cause the meek will inherit the earth.
A lot of successful people such as Jobs, Gates, Vanderbilt, Sy, Tan, Rothschild & Morgan did not allow a belief system shackle their success. One can say they will all heading to Satan. These types of people are the reason why Exodus 20:8 had to be stated.
And all I am saying is that Pope Francis got it right when he said what is important is good works. If is it in parallel to God's Law (as defined by the Christian faith) then good for them.
What the current Pope has down and I am all for is the change of tack of the belief. Rather than being obsessed with condoms, morning after pills, gays, lesbians and any other sort of "depravity" he is moving it forward to the core mission mercy and compassion for the poor.
If Christians today were as illiterate as those before the printing press than the obsession with the fags and sexual prophylactics would fly kaso almost everyone is literate and can see what overpopulation can do in given biosphere.
Still obsessed with the afterlife and not on this mortal plane? :)
Christians (the conservative/fundamentalist types) are largely subservient. They will be brave upon being called on but it is not their natural state unless it jeopardises their target of heaven.
Please, OT is different from NT. Unless you want to reverse yourself on that.
300+ years of Spanish Christian Rule for the Luzon and Visayas and 0+ years for Mindanao.
21+ years of Marcos until Cardinal Sin stepped in.
Subservient, blindly subservient.My standards are different from your standards. What you see as materialism & thus by default "sin" is a necessity unless hangang tulo laway lang ako at ingit. Not to mention medical care is f-ing expensive so those who lived simply tend to perish simply as medical care is out of reach. Which is OK lang cause the meek will inherit the earth.
A lot of successful people such as Jobs, Gates, Vanderbilt, Sy, Tan, Rothschild & Morgan did not allow a belief system shackle their success. One can say they will all heading to Satan. These types of people are the reason why Exodus 20:8 had to be stated.
And all I am saying is that Pope Francis got it right when he said what is important is good works. If is it in parallel to God's Law (as defined by the Christian faith) then good for them.
What the current Pope has down and I am all for is the change of tack of the belief. Rather than being obsessed with condoms, morning after pills, gays, lesbians and any other sort of "depravity" he is moving it forward to the core mission mercy and compassion for the poor.
If Christians today were as illiterate as those before the printing press than the obsession with the fags and sexual prophylactics would fly kaso almost everyone is literate and can see what overpopulation can do in given biosphere.
i am speaking about "true" Christians... and i dont believe that Spanish brings Christianity in the Philippines...
:)
-
i am speaking about "true" Christians... and i dont believe that Spanish brings Christianity in the Philippines...
:)
Arent fundamentalists and conservatives "true" Christians? :)
And the Spanish did bring Christianity to the Philippines unless you are of the same mindset as Joseph Smith.
-
you're right there... Jesus is not a sheep... He's a shepherd :)
though Moses and old testament characters... i may call them Christian kahit na sa panahon ng Apostles pa nabuo ang word na Christian... since old and new testaments books speaks the same theme - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
all God's children, old and new testament, i may refer to them as God's sheep...
You are right. It is faith that makes Moses a christian. Though they still don't have a name for the coming saviour, they are still considered christians because of their faith sa coming saviour.
-
Arent fundamentalists and conservatives "true" Christians? :)
Christians are the followers and believers of Jesus Christ. Kung paano mo siya expound is up to whatever you may read and interpret sa bible.
-
Arent fundamentalists and conservatives "true" Christians? :)
No, they are not.
And the Spanish did bring Christianity to the Philippines unless you are of the same mindset as Joseph Smith.
Catholicism is not the same as Christianity.
-
As far as I know, hindi pa ako nakakita ng true Christian na duwag? One characteristic or attributes ng isang true Christian is bravery...
Tama. Kaya nga hindi nila maintidihan ang mga sitas na ito:
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)
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Lk. 12:51-53)
Did Christ come to bring peace or not? ;)
-
You are right. It is faith that makes Moses a christian. Though they still don't have a name for the coming saviour, they are still considered christians because of their faith sa coming saviour.
You are merely claiming them as Christians but they are not. How could they be Christians if they have not been taught or learned about the New Testament or the teachings of Christ?
On the topic of "true" Christians, what are the characteristics that make them "true" Christians? who decides who are "true" Christians? I don't care much for Bible verses because they will always be subject to interpretation. No disrespect but if you guys want to discuss Bible verses then discuss it in the other thread: http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.0.html
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
-
no complaints here re: discussion, very interesting point raise by peeps who believe. pero parang na hijack na yata ang thread :)
-
There is no "good atheist"...
-
There is no "good atheist"...
This made my day. Walang kupas :)
-
i can also say there are no "good christians". then again, i wouldn't stoop down to that level of ignorance.
-
they dont even have the "standard of morality" on the first place... :)
-
Isa lang naman destinasyon ng bawat tao. Magkakaalaman din sa bandang huli. Kahit ano pa sabihin ninyo maniwala at hindi mas mabuti ng preparado. Alangan naman nasa harapan ka ng panginoon tapos sabihin mo pasensya na kasi sabi ng mga matatalinong tao walang diyos kaya hindi ako naniwala.
-
morality can be construed to fit someone's belief. it is too subjective. anyone can have their own "standard of morality" and having a "standard of morality" doesn't necessarily make you a good person. that is why i prefer to use empathy rather than morality.
-
its true... "having" a standard of morality doesnt necesarilly make you a good person...
its just like "having" a Bible doesnt make you a good person... or "having" read the ten commandments doesnt make you a good person... even "knowing" how to be good person doesnt necesarily makes you a good person...
"emphaty" - what is the role of "emphaty" in evolution?
-
morality can be construed to fit someone's belief. it is too subjective. anyone can have their own "standard of morality" and having a "standard of morality" doesn't necessarily make you a good person. that is why i prefer to use empathy rather than morality.
Ang personal standard of empathy can also be construed depende sa kina-lakihan mo. Minsan may effect din ang morals mo as to how you will understand what another person/s is experiencing. It seems to be interwoven.
-
you cant event use the term "emphaty" in terms of human evolution...
-
Ano kinalaman nun? Smh
-
emphaty - no place in the process of evolution
-
i'm having what you're smoking
-
kailan natuto ang tao ng "emphaty" in terms of evolutionary process?
kailan natuto ang tao ng "mercy/compassion" in terms of evolutionary process?
in atheist worldview? kailan natuto ang human species na killing is bad?
-
in atheist worldview? kailan natuto ang human species na killing is bad?
Magandang tanong yan. Hindi kaya sa naramdaman na sorrow sa loss or death of a person?
-
Ang personal standard of empathy can also be construed depende sa kina-lakihan mo. Minsan may effect din ang morals mo as to how you will understand what another person/s is experiencing. It seems to be interwoven.
Not really. Empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of those you affect. If you don't know or misconstrued the feelings of others then you lack or have no empathy. That means you're a narcissist or, at worst, maybe even a psychopath. It cannot be molded by your environment but your ability on how to empathize may be. It's either you can or cannot empathize and it is not subjective in any way.
-
Not really. Empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of those you affect. If you don't know or misconstrued the feelings of others then you lack or have no empathy. That means you're a narcissist or, at worst, maybe even a psychopath. It cannot be molded by your environment but your ability on how to empathize may be. It's either you can or cannot empathize and it is not subjective in any way.
Correct sir. Empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of those affected. But it does not dictate how you will react to the situation.
-
Correct sir. Empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of those affected. But it does not dictate how you will react to the situation.
yes it can. it may not be always but most of the times it does. if you did not consider the pain you caused to another person or ignored it before you inflict it then you lack empathy.
-
yes it can. it may not be always but most of the times it does.
Agreed. It may not always be but most of the time, it does.
Magandang topic din ito:
if you did not consider the pain you caused to another person or ignored it before you inflict it then you lack empathy.
Madaming ganyan dito sir. Replying without thinking about the feelings of others.
-
Yeah that's true. I'm guilty of that too. Madali kasi tayo madala ng emotions natin.
-
Yeah that's true. I'm guilty of that too. Madali kasi tayo madala ng emotions natin.
But it doesn't mean that you and I do not have empathy. ;)
-
And it doesn't mean we're narcissists and psychopaths hahaha
-
Magandang tanong yan. Hindi kaya sa naramdaman na sorrow sa loss or death of a person?
Eto siguro ang evolution sequence. Kaya magulo na ang mundo ngayon.
Confucius: Do not do unto others as you do not want others to do unto you.< Do not Kill the person>
Jesus: Do unto others as you want others do unto you.<Do not kill the person's loved ones>
Latest: Do unto others before others do unto you. <Kill the person before he kills you>
-
Eto siguro ang evolution sequence. Kaya magulo na ang mundo ngayon.
Confucius: Do not do unto others as you do not want others to do unto you.< Do not Kill the person>
Jesus: Do unto others as you want others do unto you.<Do not kill the person's loved ones>
Latest: Do unto others before others do unto you. <Kill the person before he kills you>
Masmatindi sir ang sinabi ni Jesus:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg2230701.html#msg2230701
And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31 NKJV)
Pero:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg2230843.html#msg2230843
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (Jn. 13:34)
-
see? that's empathy. even Jesus says so. ;D
-
in atheist worldview... kailan nagkaroon ng emphaty ang human species? before human feels emphaty paano nga ba ang basehan kung tama ginagwa ng human species noon? a child who can't
is right and wrong in atheist worldview changes depende sa era/time, place, event?
an atheist exist within a community where killing is a norm? saan papasok ang emphaty doon?
as long as your action cannot affect others then it is good to do it?
-
in atheist worldview... kailan nagkaroon ng emphaty ang human species? before human feels emphaty paano nga ba ang basehan kung tama ginagwa ng human species noon? a child who can't
is right and wrong in atheist worldview changes depende sa era/time, place, event?
an atheist exist within a community where killing is a norm? saan papasok ang emphaty doon?
as long as your action cannot affect others then it is good to do it?
You mean to say, outside of Israel, until before Judaism or Christianity were propagated, walang empathy?
-
You mean to say, outside of Israel, until before Judaism or Christianity were propagated, walang empathy?
i have no idea kung kelan nagkaroon ng emphaty ang tao sa worldview ng isang evolutionist/atheist... i just want to know... kung kelan naramdamang ng human species ang need to exercies emphaty ayon sa mga atheist...
nung unggoy pa lang ang tao may emphaty na ba? sa panahon ba ng survival of the fittest or natural selection may malaking role ba ang emphaty?
-
^ you didn't answer his question.
-
see? that's empathy. even Jesus says so. ;D
Yup! That's true. Hindi lang actually empathy but it is more than that! Kasi empathy, the way I understand it, is simply putting oneself in the shoe of the other. If we would study the Words of Jesus further expounded in the Bible, hindi lang empathy pero more on being pro-active. Kung baga, kikilos tayo.
-
^ you didn't answer his question.
i have no idea when it comes to atheist view... that is why i am asking kailan pumasok ang emphaty sa human evolution in atheist worldview...
in atheist worldview... nag exist na ba ang emphaty habang unggoy pa lang o isda... or habang nasa mababang species ng human...
saan ba pumasok ang emphaty in terms of evolution...
kasi in terms of creation alam mo na ang sagot ko diyan saan at kailan nagsimula o kung sino ang nagbigay ng emphaty sa tao :)
i just want to know ano stand ng atheist when it comes to emphaty... sa ngayon we can easily says na basehan natin ang emphaty... paano before may role ba ang emphaty sa panahon na kung kelan umiiral ang survival of the fittest o nasa natural selection process ang human species... kailangan ba ang emphaty sa process ng survival of the fittest?
-
There are instances where animals show empathy so even before we evolve into modern humans meron na.
-
Empathy is part of the electro chemical process within our body. Kaya iba meron yung iba wala, as part of the evolution process. During the evolution process, nakita na yung may empathy mas malaki yung chance of survival, unlike doon sa walang emathy. Kaya yung genes na nagbigay ng empathy na pass on sa mga anak. So majority meron empathy, pero meron pa din pa minsan minsan na walang empathy.
-
Empathy is part of the electro chemical process within our body. Kaya iba meron yung iba wala, as part of the evolution process. During the evolution process, nakita na yung may empathy mas malaki yung chance of survival, unlike doon sa walang emathy. Kaya yung genes na nagbigay ng empathy na pass on sa mga anak. So majority meron empathy, pero meron pa din pa minsan minsan na walang empathy.
Yan ang hindi ko alam.
-
di ko rin alam yan...
-
There are instances where animals show empathy so even before we evolve into modern humans meron na.
Not exactly....
Animals have empathy too!
by: Connor Wood
It’s clear that animals have distinct personalities and, very likely, some type of subjective “selves,” even if those selves may be very different from human inner experiences. Anyone who’s owned pets knows that cats and dogs can be curious, inquisitive, scheming, quirky, and even dishonest – witness a cat jumping down from the counters to “pretend” it wasn’t up there in the first place. But do animals feel real empathy or compassion, emotions often held aloft by spiritual and religious teachings as among the highest human ideals?
University of Chicago neuroscientist Jean Decety and colleagues Peggy Mason and Inbal Bartal published the results of a study in Science magazine showing that rats were actually able to empathize with, and act to help, their fellows. The researchers introduced strange pairs of rats to each other and allowed them to get acquainted over a two-week period.
It’s important to point out that these rats were not genetic kin, and so the usual evolutionary argument for altruistic behavior – that it assists family members, who in turn share some of one’s own genes and therefore are able to contribute to one’s inclusive, or non-direct, genetic fitness – doesn’t hold. And the evidence suggests that the rats’ altruistic actions were directly related to their partners’ distress, since the trapped mice gave out very high-pitched (presumably unhappy) squeaks that were recorded with sensitive instruments and heard by their free comrades.
-
nasa genes ang emphaty?
genetically passed on to their offsprings? kapag minalas malas ka hindi mo mamamana ang "emphaty"... :) those who doesnt have emphaty never have a chance to do good?
parang homosexuality... nasa genes din :)
-
Taken from:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-louse.html?m=1
Skeptic: Science is BS. Physicists believe in these things called “quarks,” which are little flavored particles that spin around and work like magic charms. Their evidence is that they read about them in a James Joyce novel. Some of them think the universe is made up of tiny shoelaces tied together, though they admit that they have no evidence for this and have to take it on faith. Einstein said morality is all relative – which is why he stole his ideas from this guy who worked in a patent office, and why Richard Feynman stole atomic secrets during WWII. Meanwhile, the chemists contradict the physicists and believe instead in little colored balls held together by sticks. Biologists believe monkeys can give birth to human beings. What a bunch of crap! It’s child abuse to teach kids about this stuff in schools.
Scientist: Are you joking? If not, I suggest that you actually read some science before criticizing it.
Skeptic: I’ve already read a lot about it, in blog comboxes like this one. And why should I waste my time reading anything else? I already know it’s all BS! Didn’t you hear the examples I just gave?
Scientist: No, you’re missing my point. You’ve completely distorted what scientists actually say. It’s not remotely as silly as you think it is. In fact it’s not silly at all. But you need to actually read the stuff to see that.
Skeptic: So you deny that physicists believe in quarks? What flavor are your quarks, chocolate or vanilla? Do you deny that they think we came from monkeys? Which monkey was your mother?
Scientist: No one says that monkeys gave birth to humans. That’s a ridiculous caricature. And of course I don’t deny that physicists believe in quarks, but you’re badly misunderstanding what they mean when they attribute “flavor” to them. They don’t mean that literally…
Skeptic: Oh so it’s just empty verbiage, then. See, you’re just proving my point for me.
Scientist: No, it’s not empty verbiage. It’s technical terminology.
Skeptic: I see, like magic spells. That’s why they talk about “charm.” Really, you’re just digging the hole deeper.
Scientist: Actually, it’s you who is digging your own hole deeper. That’s not what they mean by “charm.” If you knew anything at all about physics, you’d realize that.
Skeptic: See, every time I debate people like you, you always whine about how everyone misunderstands what you mean. You always say “Go read this shelf of books and come back when you know what you’re talking about.” It’s like one of the naked emperor’s sycophants telling the kid who sees that he’s naked that he needs to read the learned works of Count Roderigo concerning the fine leather of the emperor’s boots, etc.
Scientist: What a ridiculous analogy. You’re just begging the question. Whether science is really comparable to the naked emperor is precisely what’s at issue.
Skeptic: OK, I’ll bite. Explain it to me, then. Prove to me here and now in this combox that science is worth my time, as opposed to being the tissue of superstition, lies, and bigotry that I already know it to be. And don’t get long-winded like you people tend to do, or start throwing around references to this scientist I should know about or that book I should have read.
Scientist: What is this, an invitation to the Star Chamber? How am I supposed to explain fields as complex as quantum physics, or evolutionary biology, or chemistry to the satisfaction of someone as hostile to them as you are in a combox comment, or even a blog post or series of blog posts? Besides, there are so many things wrong with what you’ve said I don’t even know where to begin! And if I keep it short, you’ll tell me that I’m dodging whatever issue I don’t address, while if I respond at greater length you’ll tell me I’m a windbag. I can’t win! But why are you wasting time in a combox anyway? Why don’t you just read the work of some actual scientists? It’s right there in the library or bookstore if you really want to understand it.
Skeptic: I knew it. You won’t defend yourself because you know you can’t. But then, arguing with people like you just gives you credibility. That’s why you uneducated, irrational fanatical bigots need to be shouted down by reasonable, open-minded, well-read, tolerant people like me. Science is BS, and you know it. It’s just so obvious. So why don’t you go back to eating your tasty flavored quarks and tying your vibrating 11-dimensional shoestrings over at your Uncle Monkey’s house, OK? I’ll be here in the reality-based community reading my copy of The Science Delusion.
Author's note:
Naturally, a Dawkins or Myers would be appalled at our Skeptic. And rightly so. But replace terms like “science,” “physicists,” “quarks,” etc. with terms like “theism,” “philosophers,” “God,” etc. and you’ve suddenly got in our Skeptic a typical Dawkins or Myers fan – indeed, you’ve got someone pretty much indistinguishable from Dawkins or Myers themselves.
-
except that's not what a skeptic is. the other guy who argues with a scientist is what you call a science-denier.
-
Raising children without religion may be a better option. (http://www.bustle.com/articles/62411-raising-children-without-religion-may-be-a-better-alternative-suggests-new-research?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=fijifrost&utm_campaign=CMfacebook&ts_pid=2)
-
A family united in Christ is a family united forever.
http://www.a-better-child.org/page/896875
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/raising-our-children-without-god/
-
Answers in Genesis? That's by Ken Ham who is an anti-intellectual scam artist.
-
Raising children without religion may be a better option. (http://www.bustle.com/articles/62411-raising-children-without-religion-may-be-a-better-alternative-suggests-new-research?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=fijifrost&utm_campaign=CMfacebook&ts_pid=2)
how your parents raise you KW... did it work?
-
Answers in Genesis? That's by Ken Ham who is an anti-intellectual scam artist.
We can also say that YOU are the anti-intellectual scam artist. How can you be so sure of your position？ Are you willing to actually bet your life on it？？？ Are you willing to die for what you believe?
-
afaik... KW was raised with religion... it seems that KW is not satisfied kung paano siya ni raise ng kanyang parents... :)
-
Magkakaalaman din sa bandang huli. Ang tanong ano ang sasabihin mo sa harap ng Panginoon? Paano rin mo siya haharapin? Sensya na po pero mas naniwala ako sa sarili ko eh. Mas magaling kasi ako.
-
Kung sa sugal nga na tipong 50-50 ka eh di ba susugal ka kung saan ka panalo at di matatalo kahit ano mangyari. Isusugal mo ba paniwala mo sa maling o di siguradong akala?
-
Sa tingin mo okay lang sa Diyos yon? Kung ang pagiisip ng tao ay ganito:
"Hindi talaga ako naniniwala sa Diyos pero sige na nga paniwalaan ko na lang, tutal, wala namang mawawala sa akin. Play safe na lang ako."
Tatanggapin pa rin ba ng Diyos ang taong ganon?
-
Kung sa sugal nga na tipong 50-50 ka eh di ba susugal ka kung saan ka panalo at di matatalo kahit ano mangyari. Isusugal mo ba paniwala mo sa maling o di siguradong akala?
so naniniwala ka lang kasi takot ka na managot sa diyos mo kung sakaling totoo siya? you have a very strong faith.
-
Bakit naman hindi. Simula iyun ng pagbabago. Kahit paano may unang hakbang. Mabuti na iyun kasi balang araw puwede lumalim ang paniniwala. Ang takot sa Diyos sa kanyang kapangyarihan ay isang paraan para manatili tayo sa kanyang piling.
-
Sa tingin mo okay lang sa Diyos yon? Kung ang pagiisip ng tao ay ganito:
"Hindi talaga ako naniniwala sa Diyos pero sige na nga paniwalaan ko na lang, tutal, wala namang mawawala sa akin. Play safe na lang ako."
Tatanggapin pa rin ba ng Diyos ang taong ganon?
Mas mabuti na iyung kesa sa taong kontra. Kahit paano naka unang hakbang. Pagdating ng panahon lalalim din ang paniniwala.
-
Bakit naman hindi. Simula iyun ng pagbabago. Kahit paano may unang hakbang. Mabuti na iyun kasi balang araw puwede lumalim ang paniniwala. Ang takot sa Diyos sa kanyang kapangyarihan ay isang paraan para manatili tayo sa kanyang piling.
no offense but that means sigurista ka lang dahil takot ka para sa sarili mo.
-
Basta buo ang loob mo at paniniwala puwede kang maparehas sa taong humingi ng pabor kay Kristo noong napako siya sa Krus.
-
no offense but that means sigurista ka lang dahil takot ka para sa sarili mo.
Eh ano ngayon kung takot ako. Masama bang matakot? Tanong ko sa iyo, sabi ba ng Diyos na lagi kang kampante. Hindi ba niya tinakot ang mga tao? Kung sa tingin mo hindi normal ang matakot eh matakot ka kasi hindi normal ang hindi natatakot.
-
Eh ano ngayon kung takot ako. Masama bang matakot?
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?
-
Eh nagsisimula nga eh. Gusto mo naman perfect agad. Hindi ba ako puwedeng magkamali? Ikaw ba perfect? Sa tingin ko mas gusto ng Diyos ng taong nagkakamali at bumabangon kesa sa perfect lagi.
-
no one but you is saying that you should be perfect. but an argument with a flawed premise has flawed claims.
-
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...
-
no one but you is saying that you should be perfect. but an argument with a flawed premise has flawed claims.
Flawed claims? Is it wrong to make a first step because of fear? Is it wrong to want salvation for myself?
Your argument implies you have such perfect sense. I won't argue with you on that. Hope it does you good when you meet your creator.
-
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...
Sabi nga mismo ng Diyos na pansinin mo muna sarili mo bago iba pero itong taong ito gusto muna magpakabayani sa iba.
-
"pansinin mo muna sarili mo" is very much different from "sarili mo lang iniisip mo".
-
Naniniwala ka ba o hindi sa Diyos? Nais mo ba maisalba?
-
Why exactly would one need salvation? Are they/you in peril? Also, how did you come about your religion?
-
Now I'm not against people who are into religion but since you keep on insisting your belief on others who chose not to believe I'll oblige you. I'm an agnostic and unlike most people, I don't believe in any form of religion and I don't believe that faith is a personal choice as most religious people put it because in the first place our parents and/or society force it upon us. Were you given a choice on what to believe? No. So how can you say that your God is the one true God when you were indoctrinated into believing and following a religion as a child in the first place?
-
That is your choice. But like what I said we all die and when we do what do we have to say in front of the creator. It is difficult to argue there is no God due to evidence that the Son of God existed. So no one can claim ignorance. As such, whether you like it or not you need to believe. Not doing do is your choice snd you will have to defend yourself not from other people but the creator himself.
-
We will know when we die if we go to heaven or not and what I can advice is to prepare for the judgement day.
-
I was never indoctrinated. I accepted him long time ago. Should I meet him st the opportune time let it not be said I did not prepare.
-
Do you mean you came into your religion at your own volition? Your parents had nothing to do with it?
-
OMG religion trolls ;D
-
It is difficult to argue there is no God due to evidence that the Son of God existed.
No, there isn't.
There is evidence to suggest someone named Jesus who may have claimed to be the Son of God existed 2,000 years ago according to an ancient manuscript primarily written by people who were taking dictation from illiterate people which in turn was translated and retranslated by people who have their own agenda.
As for whether the Virgin Birth, Resurrection or miracles happened, there is zero scientific evidence of those. There are lots of gods and prophets throughout history who have similar stories, some people say Christianity usurped these stories for their own.
I do think religious dogma is there to control people, to keep them tame for the powerful to manipulate them for their own selfish needs. How better to control people than to keep them hoping for an afterlife if their lives are miserable whilst making them all screwed up on the head by making them feel guilty about their sexuality?
-
actually, since si rascal ang nagke-claim na may God then the burden of proof lies with him.
-
OMG religion trolls ;D
(http://www.helpfeedthetroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/religion_is_like_a_penis.jpg)
-
Tignan mo nga naman magsalita. Sabi ko nga at uulitin ko may hangganan lahat. Dun kayo sa presinto magpaliwanag.
-
Dun niyo ipakita yun mga natutunan niyo.
-
actually, since si rascal ang nagke-claim na may God then the burden of proof lies with him.
Magsalita ka nga ng maayos - sa wikang ingles o tagalog, huwag iyung halu halo. Tsaka iayos mo salita mo. Huwag natin idinadagdag mga maselang parte ng katawan natin. Tutal kinakausap ko kayo ng maayos.
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/5b/5b7e0fdd39178dc8d4148618607fc96fb8908a1ea62c04119630f50f349c4ce1.jpg)
-
Bakit may beer iyung pinakita mong litrato? Halu halo type mo hindi ba?
-
Now I'm not against people who are into religion but since you keep on insisting your belief on others who chose not to believe I'll oblige you. I'm an agnostic and unlike most people, I don't believe in any form of religion and I don't believe that faith is a personal choice as most religious people put it because in the first place our parents and/or society force it upon us. Were you given a choice on what to believe? No. So how can you say that your God is the one true God when you were indoctrinated into believing and following a religion as a child in the first place?
You are right! Sometimes, it start with the parents. And even if the so called "religion" comes from the parents, paglaki mo, you have a personal choice to follow the faith or not. Just like Klaus, who opted not to follow his parents. But if you chose to follow, you must develop a relationship with your creator.
There is evidence to suggest someone named Jesus who may have claimed to be the Son of God existed 2,000 years ago according to an ancient manuscript primarily written by people who were taking dictation from illiterate people which in turn was translated and retranslated by people who have their own agenda.
Thank you for confirming this. And even if you read the Koran, Jesus was also there proving he really existed. But more than that, both the Bible and Koran stated that Jesus was a perfect individual, sinless.
I do think religious dogma is there to control people, to keep them tame for the powerful to manipulate them for their own selfish needs. How better to control people than to keep them hoping for an afterlife if their lives are miserable whilst making them all screwed up on the head by making them feel guilty about their sexuality?
I also agree with you that the rules can be controlling to the people. But still, we all believe in free will so it's up to the people if they would follow or not. Same with the government, we have a set of rules in which we abide to. And i also believe that the rules are there to establish order. So if there is someone who finds his life miserable and screwed up because of their faith, then either he needs to dig deeper to find out the reasons why such rules exist or like i said earlier, he can opt not follow.
-
You may get your religion because of your parents but salvation is always personal...
I do think religious dogma is there to control people, to keep them tame for the powerful to manipulate them for their own selfish needs. How better to control people than to keep them hoping for an afterlife if their lives are miserable whilst making them all screwed up on the head by making them feel guilty about their sexuality?
"religious dogma"... any religion should have at least few or more laws/dogma for their members... just like any government tulad nga ng sinabi ni sir nelson...
kung hindi mo gusto ang law/dogma ng isang religion then umalis ka sa religion na yan... kung hindi mo gusto ang batas ng isang government better umalis ka na rin... the law is there to protect us and to maintain peace and order... for me it s always - God's law first before any other law...
-
Yun na nga eh pinagpipilitan nila na iginigiit sa kanila ang Relihiyon ngunit malaya naman sila. Tapos kung magsalita pa eh bastos. Isipin na lang natin na hindi nila kayang lumaban ng patas. Kung baga sa suntukan pati paa kasali. Iyun ba ang dehado o dumedehado?
-
Magsalita kayo ng marangal dahil sinasagot kayo ng marangal pakiusap lang.
-
Do you mean you came into your religion at your own volition? Your parents had nothing to do with it?
Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo at hindi ko kayo masasagot sa wikang Ingles kasi nasimulan ko ang wikang Tagalog sa una kong pananalita.
Sa katanungan mo, hindi "indoctrination" ang nangyari. Pagpapaliwanag sa tamang daan ang nangyari.
Ako naman magtatanong, marunong ka bang umintindi ng salitang Tagalog? Sa laban ng suntukan naiintindihan mo ba na ang sandatang ginagamit ay mga kamao o "fists" sa wikang ingles? Ang salitang "sandata" naintindihan mo ba?
-
Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo at hindi ko kayo masasagot sa wikang Ingles kasi nasimulan ko ang wikang Tagalog sa una kong pananalita.
Sa katanungan mo, hindi "indoctrination" ang nangyari. Pagpapaliwanag sa tamang daan ang nangyari.
indoctrination: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs
so hindi pala indoctrination yun. ok.
Ako naman magtatanong, marunong ka bang umintindi ng salitang Tagalog? Sa laban ng suntukan naiintindihan mo ba na ang sandatang ginagamit ay mga kamao o "fists" sa wikang ingles? Ang salitang "sandata" naintindihan mo ba?
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/71/71c3931c1edc4353a0c03ec549753b965872a2c343c09255617f4470cbd924ed.jpg)
-
commercial break :-\
"Who's Clarice?"
"Agent Starling, Paul, if you can't keep up with the conversation, better not try to join in at all."
-
"Putting words into someone elses mouth" - bumenta na iyan. Magsalita ka na lang ng tagalog para masabi mong Pilipino ka na nagmamahal sa sarili mong wika.
-
Commercial break - paano nga ba sabihin iyan sa wikang Tagalog?
-
Sino nga ba dito hindi nakikinig - ako nga pala iyun hehehe. Ayan masaya ka na? Tinanggap ko na iyung ayaw mong tanggapin.
-
"Putting words into someone elses mouth" - bumenta na iyan. Magsalita ka na lang ng tagalog para masabi mong Pilipino ka na nagmamahal sa sarili mong wika.
ikaw pala mahilig sa halo-halo lol.
sorry, pero di ko mai-connect ang pinagsasasabi mo regarding sa tagalog-ingles sa pinag-uusapan.
(http://www.symantec.com/business/support/library/BUSINESS/TECH210758/Lost%20connection.png)
-
Commercial break - paano nga ba sabihin iyan sa wikang Tagalog?
Patalastas.
-
Commercial break - paano nga ba sabihin iyan sa wikang Tagalog?
literal: nabasag na komersiyal :)
-
literal: nabasag na komersiyal :)
Broken commercial yan e.
-
ikaw pala mahilig sa halo-halo lol.
sorry, pero di ko mai-connect ang pinagsasasabi mo regarding sa tagalog-ingles sa pinag-uusapan.
(http://www.symantec.com/business/support/library/BUSINESS/TECH210758/Lost%20connection.png)
Pinagsama ang ingles at tagalog na hindi gumagamit ng "", Taglish kong tawagin. Uso daw sa mga sosyal iyun eh.
O ayan na naman "mai-connect". Sa tagalog puwede mong gamitin ang salitang maipagdugtong o kaya naman ay "mai-connect". Marunong ka rin pala mag tagalog kahit paano.
-
@leomarley
Napansin ko lang hilig mo gumamit ng ... kung baga sa wikang ingles ay "comment boxes", okay iyan.
Paano ba iyan naipasunod kita sa pagsasalita ng tagalog eh di pupuntos ako. Pasensya na ha pero isa kontra wala o "1-0" :) :) :)
-
literal: nabasag na komersiyal :)
Nagpapatawa ka ba Sir?
-
@leomarley
Napansin ko lang hilig mo gumamit ng ... kung baga sa wikang ingles ay "comment boxes", okay iyan.
Paano ba iyan naipasunod kita sa pagsasalita ng tagalog eh di pupuntos ako. Pasensya na ha pero isa kontra wala o "1-0" :) :) :)
sige sir maglaro ka lang dyan. lol ;D
-
Nagpapatawa ka ba Sir?
patalastas lang... tama naman un "patalastas"... binigyan lang kita ng literal na transition na mali pala ako sa naibigay ko ayon kay sir bumblebee...
Broken commercial yan e.
-
sige sir maglaro ka lang dyan. lol ;D
Antay kita mapikon eh para iskor ulit ako.
-
Mga pare pwede sumali? Kita kayo sa google e.
emphaty - no place in the process of evolution
Hm. Parang tournament sa DotA ang evolution. Tapos tayong mga tao ay weak na mga heroes. Tanggal agad tayo sa kompetisyon kung di natin tratratuhin nang matino mga teammates natin.
Try mo i-solo ang isang oso o leon. Syempre mas mababa chance na manalo ka kung mag-isa ka lang. (Bawal kanyunin yung oso syempre. Lokohan na yun.)
Tsaka "survival of the fittest"? Di "by individual" ang survival of the fittest. Superman ka nga e wala ka naman asawa, pano mo mapapasa genes mo nun.. By group yun.
Tignan mo ginagawa natin sa ibang mga hayop. Para bang ininiyakan ni aling tindera bawat katay na baboy na binebenta nya sa palengke a.. Ilang gubat na ba inagaw natin sa ibang mga hayop.. Yun survival of the fittest.
Kung explanation gamit evolution edi:
"Mga weakling dapat may empathy para magtulungan. At syempre, di applicable** ang empathy na yun sa ibang species."
**baka sabihin mo mga pusa o aso. Tuloy ko na lang next post kung gusto pa.
-
chief, na google din ako pero din naman lumabas yung discussion dito sa forum ah! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
isipin mo boss, mababasa mo naman kht guest lang nag register ka pa para maka sali sa discussion, ang haba pa ng nabackread mo...bka pagdudahan ka na pseudo account yan? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Antay kita mapikon eh para iskor ulit ako.
cge hintay ka lang. ako kasi wala na hihintayin ;D
Nagpapatawa ka ba Sir?
Ako naman magtatanong, marunong ka bang umintindi ng salitang Tagalog? Sa laban ng suntukan naiintindihan mo ba na ang sandatang ginagamit ay mga kamao o "fists" sa wikang ingles? Ang salitang "sandata" naintindihan mo ba?
Magsalita ka nga ng maayos - sa wikang ingles o tagalog, huwag iyung halu halo. Tsaka iayos mo salita mo. Huwag natin idinadagdag mga maselang parte ng katawan natin. Tutal kinakausap ko kayo ng maayos.
Magsalita kayo ng marangal dahil sinasagot kayo ng marangal pakiusap lang.
Yun na nga eh pinagpipilitan nila na iginigiit sa kanila ang Relihiyon ngunit malaya naman sila. Tapos kung magsalita pa eh bastos. Isipin na lang natin na hindi nila kayang lumaban ng patas. Kung baga sa suntukan pati paa kasali. Iyun ba ang dehado o dumedehado?
Tignan mo nga naman magsalita. Sabi ko nga at uulitin ko may hangganan lahat. Dun kayo sa presinto magpaliwanag.
Dun niyo ipakita yun mga natutunan niyo.
hindi ka pa siguro pikon niyan, ano sir?
sabagay. kanino ba naman yung batas na "Offending religious feelings". pano nga naman kami mapipikon eh wala namang "Offending non-religious feelings". ;D
-
Ah mauuna ka na pala. Di ka na mag-aantay. Sige mauna ka na, bata pa ako eh.
-
Walang pikunan dito ha.
-
Walang pikunan dito ha.
Di naman ako pikon sir. Useless sa akin ang mapikon dahil sa relihiyon. Not sure about you kasi dun sa mga na-quote ko na mga sinabi mo eh parang nanggagalaiti ka na. ;D
-
chief, na google din ako pero din naman lumabas yung discussion dito sa forum ah! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
isipin mo boss, mababasa mo naman kht guest lang nag register ka pa para maka sali sa discussion, ang haba pa ng nabackread mo...bka pagdudahan ka na pseudo account yan? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/x8B59Px.png)
Tinanggal kasi yung chart sa wikipedia. Napa-google tuloy ako.
before
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_the_Philippines&oldid=625126166 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_the_Philippines&oldid=625126166)
after
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Philippines)
Galing sa census yung data na yun. Cinompute lang yung mga percent.
Na-throttle down ako ng globe ngaun, di ko mabuksan pdf ng NSO sa bagal ng net. Yun, google. Evolution una ko hinahanap.
-
Pinapasakay lang kita kaya nga naka puntos ako eh.
-
Pero sa totoo lang hindi ko talaga matiis lahat ng mga nag t taglish. Nahihiya ako dahil sa Cebu o hindi kaya sa Pangasinan hindi naman nahahaluan ng dayuhang wika ang salita nila.
-
Bakit nga ba mga taga Maynila hindi marunong magsalita ng diretsong tagalog?
-
Bakit nga ba mga taga Maynila hindi marunong magsalita ng diretsong tagalog?
impluwensya ng Hollywood and dahil na rin siguro under tayo dati (or in some cases, now) ng US. hindi mo pwede sabihin na ngayon lang kasi kahit mga lumang pinoy movies madaming spokening english na scenes.
pero OT na. alam ko merong thread dito about language dati.
-
Ah ok. Hindi pa rin nasasagot iyung tanong ko tungkol sa isasagot sa lumikha sa atin lalo na sa mga taong hindi naniniwala. At bakit nga ba mas maraming naniniwala kesa hindi? Bigyan pansin natin ang mga taong nasa Tsina dahil walang Diyos na tinuturo ang pamahalaan. Pero mismo sa bukang bibig ng mga tao doon naniniwala sila sa Diyos o sa may nakakataas na kapagyarian na puwede natin ihalintulad sa Diyos. Bakit nga ba?
-
simple answer: because most people need a purpose to live and find comfort believing that there is life after death. in the ancient times people need a reason for why things that they cannot explain happen. madali nga naman sabihin na "diyos ang gumawa niyan".
-
Bakit nga ba mga taga Maynila hindi marunong magsalita ng diretsong tagalog?
It's become the lingua franca of Manila. It's actually ACCEPTED as a valid language separate from Tagalog. It's called FILIPINO (it used to be called "Taglish"). The structure is Tagalog with English terms peppered in. (e.g. Pupunta ako sa library.) What is NOT accepted is something called Engalog where it is reversed: English structure but peppered with Tagalog terms (e.g. The house is so malaki!). That's unacceptable.
-
simple answer: because most people need a purpose to live and find comfort believing that there is life after death. in the ancient times people need a reason for why things that they cannot explain happen. madali nga naman sabihin na "diyos ang gumawa niyan".
It's become the lingua franca of Manila. It's actually ACCEPTED as a valid language separate from Tagalog. It's called FILIPINO (it used to be called "Taglish"). The structure is Tagalog with English terms peppered in. (e.g. Pupunta ako sa library.) What is NOT accepted is something called Engalog where it is reversed: English structure but peppered with Tagalog terms (e.g. The house is so malaki!). That's unacceptable.
Ayan na naman kayo. Nag-ingles na naman kayo. :D
-
Oooops. simula ngayon bawal na mag-ingles.
eto na lang:
yano nga tubag: tungod kay kadaghanan sa mga tawo kinahanglan sa usa ka katuyoan nga mabuhi ug makakaplag og kahupayan sa pagtuo nga adunay kinabuhi human sa kamatayon. sa karaang panahon ang mga tawo kinahanglan nga usa ka rason kay ngano ang mga butang nga sila dili -aw sa mahitabo. kini mas sayon sa pag-ingon nga "ang dios sa gibuhat nga" ;)
-
It's become the lingua franca of Manila. It's actually ACCEPTED as a valid language separate from Tagalog. It's called FILIPINO (it used to be called "Taglish"). The structure is Tagalog with English terms peppered in. (e.g. Pupunta ako sa library.) What is NOT accepted is something called Engalog where it is reversed: English structure but peppered with Tagalog terms (e.g. The house is so malaki!). That's unacceptable.
Correct. Kaya nga ang ating pambansang wika ay Filipino hindi Tagalog...
-
Pahirap sa akin ang Taglish :(
-
@leomarley
Kasabot ra ba ko ug Cebuano. Tiga asa man ka Dong?
-
Ah ok. Hindi pa rin nasasagot iyung tanong ko tungkol sa isasagot sa lumikha sa atin lalo na sa mga taong hindi naniniwala.
Ano point sagutin ang omniscient na deity? Alam na nun kumpletong reason ng mga di naniniwala kung bakit di sila na-convince. (Mga pre, hirap purong Tagalog haluan ko English a. Kumbinsido ba tagalog ng na-convince? Limot ko na grabe.)
At bakit nga ba mas maraming naniniwala kesa hindi?
Mas madalas manganak mga religious. Well documented yan sa mga studies. Tignan mo sa google scholar "correlation of religiosity and fertility" kung ilang studies may nakitang positive correlation. (Wag sana isa-isahin lang, tignan yung trend at pagiging cross-cultural)
Tapos dati pinapatay pa mga di religious.
Grok: "Ha? Kainin na lang kaya natin? Tingin ko la kinalaman pag-aalay natin ng sabre-tooth tiger na to sa kaligtasan ng-- *SPLAK*"
Ugk: "Wah! Baliw si Grok, di naniniwala! Sibatin yang demonyong yan!"
Kung may religious gene*, genetic bias level 99 lang.
*Di kailangan na sa religiosity mismo. Pwedeng indirectly galing sa personality type o ano. May mga studies na naghanap ng correlation sa IQ at religiosity kelan lang.
Tingin ko di magandang example ang China. Pwersahan pagiging secular nila. Japan o United Kingdom (except North Ireland) walang tulong sa gobyerno pagiging non-religious nila.
Pero mismo sa bukang bibig ng mga tao doon naniniwala sila sa Diyos o sa may nakakataas na kapagyarian na puwede natin ihalintulad sa Diyos. Bakit nga ba?
Ok sana yun kung Deist ka. Kaso Kristiyano ka diba? Iba diyos ng mga Chinese. Sa OT pinapatay ng mga chosen people ang may ibang relihiyon.
Verse 16.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20)
Ano ba mas mali? Ang di maniwala o ang magkaron ng sobrang ibang paniniwala?
Habang nandun na tayo sa chapter na yun, bakit di exempted yung mga bata na nakatira sa chosen land? Yung mga nasa malalayo, ginawang slaves naman (Verse 14). Bakit di na lang din gawing slaves yung mga batang Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? O kaya kausapin na lang para magbago ng religion para la na problema.
-
Hindi pa rin sapat ang mga kasagutan mo dahil sa simula mas nakararami hindi naniniwala. Mayroon nga noon iyung tinatawag na "religious persecution" kung saan pinapatay din ang mga naniniwala.
Patungkol naman sa nasabi kamakailan kung saan mas madaling pasunurin o "i-control" ang naniniwala eh di ang ibig sabihin nun eh mas maganda pala sa lipunan ang marunong sumunod. Paano uusbong ang isang lipunan, kumpanya, mga grupo kung ang mga kasapi hindi mapasunod. Ano ang pamilya kung hindi nagkakasundo ang mga miyembro?
-
Inaamin ba ng hindi naniniwala na hindi maaring iusbong ang kanilang plata porma? Gaya na ng iba't ibang bansang o grupong mandaraig hindi nila nakayanan ang ganitong klase.
-
Patungkol naman sa Tsina para mausbong ang komunismo pumatay din ng sankatutak na tao at pinilit ng husto sa mga mamamayan ang komunismo. Pero dahil sa "internet" unti unting nagbabago ang pananaw ng mga Intsik.
-
Bakit sa kahirapan ng tao o sa isang komunidad na malaya mas pinipili ng tao ang Diyos? Ito ba ay dahil wala naman naidudulot na mas maayos na pamumuhay ang kawalan?
-
Sana nandito si Parker!
-
@leomarley
Kasabot ra ba ko ug Cebuano. Tiga asa man ka Dong?
gamay lang. Nagdako ko sa Manila pero ang father ko gikan sa Mindanao.
Hindi pa rin sapat ang mga kasagutan mo dahil sa simula mas nakararami hindi naniniwala. Mayroon nga noon iyung tinatawag na "religious persecution" kung saan pinapatay din ang mga naniniwala.
naguluhan ako kasi sabi mo kanina mas marami ang naniniwala pero dito sabi mo naman mas nakararami ang hindi naniniwala. there's no argument na mas marami ang naniniwala sa atheist/agnostic. those who don't follow or subscribe to a religion are minorities.
Patungkol naman sa nasabi kamakailan kung saan mas madaling pasunurin o "i-control" ang naniniwala eh di ang ibig sabihin nun eh mas maganda pala sa lipunan ang marunong sumunod. Paano uusbong ang isang lipunan, kumpanya, mga grupo kung ang mga kasapi hindi mapasunod. Ano ang pamilya kung hindi nagkakasundo ang mga miyembro?
not necessarily. ang pagkontrol ay may advantage and disadvantage depende kung gaano mo kinokontrol ang tao. Religion is usually against science. science promotes progress. bakit against science? because science refutes their age old notion of how things work. read about the Dark Ages where religion was very much in control. naging stagnant ang progress ng humanity culturally, artistically, and scientifically.
Patungkol naman sa Tsina para mausbong ang komunismo pumatay din ng sankatutak na tao at pinilit ng husto sa mga mamamayan ang komunismo. Pero dahil sa "internet" unti unting nagbabago ang pananaw ng mga Intsik.
just because some atheists killed people doesn't mean all atheists would kill all people. actually, i wouldn't call them atheists because they idolize Marx. kumbaga parang ang komunismo ang naging relihiyon nila.
Bakit sa kahirapan ng tao o sa isang komunidad na malaya mas pinipili ng tao ang Diyos? Ito ba ay dahil wala naman naidudulot na mas maayos na pamumuhay ang kawalan?
simple lang din yan. when a man is at his lowest point they would ask anyone for help. if no one helps he then asks for a "miracle" and "miracles" are often, if not always, attributed to a deity.
-
Sa simula bago dumating si Kristo mas marami di naniniwala hindi ba?
-
Bakit nga ba hindi sabihin ng tao na kapag gipit siya sa sarili ko na lang ako dedepende. Bakit biglang litaw ang Diyos?
-
Ang relihiyon ay hindi kontra sa syensya. Siguro ang mga namuno noon ay may pagkukulang at hindi nila naintindihan ang syensya mismo. Ngunit sa bagong mga namumuno ng relihiyon ngayon mayroon ng mas sapat na karunungan.
-
Sasagot ako sa wikang ingles. In any given society when the status quo is questioned, leaders make it a point to silence critics. Since these critics used science the status made sure to discredit science. In reality science is merely explaining events or things based on available data. However, this does not necesarily mean science is correct. Insufficiecient data leads to wrong conclusions. As such, the question is, is existing data sufficient enough?
-
Aagit ito kung bakit kinokontra ng relihiyon noon.
-
When you have more powerful weapons due to advancement in Science, does that mean yiu have progress? Does advanced communicatiin due to internet or computers make for better relationship or is it because of the willingness to compromise?
-
Sa simula bago dumating si Kristo mas marami di naniniwala hindi ba?
most people believe in a form of religion either they are pagans, hebrew, hindu, believe in either Roman or Greek mythology. there is absolutely no point in time where non-believers were the majority or even have a significant number.
Bakit nga ba hindi sabihin ng tao na kapag gipit siya sa sarili ko na lang ako dedepende. Bakit biglang litaw ang Diyos?
same answer as with the "miracle".
However, this does not necesarily mean science is correct. Insufficiecient data leads to wrong conclusions. As such, the question is, is existing data sufficient enough?
this is the beauty of science. as new data comes along, they (the scientists) incorporate it to make changes to the current model or disregard it altogether and make a better model. unlike in religion wherein they are usually against changing their dogmas. why do you think the CBCP is against the RH Bill? remember when the Catholic Church persecuted scientists and philosophers like Galileo, Copernicus and artists in the middle ages and even in the renaissance era? check here for famous scientists who were persecuted by religion: http://www.reporternews.com/lifestyle/health-and-fitness/scientists-persecuted-throughout-history
When you have more powerful weapons due to advancement in Science, does that mean yiu have progress? Does advanced communicatiin due to internet or computers make for better relationship or is it because of the willingness to compromise?
science is not a tool to make advanced weaponry. blame the military and human conflicts for that. for your second question, it depends on how you use it. advanced communication should not be used as a replacement for socializing with people physically. it should be used as a compromise not a replacement for conventional socializing.
now, let me ask you this. what will happen if religion rules the world. not necessarily one religion. and in this world practicing science is a violation of religious dogmas. what do you think will happen?
-
this is the beauty of science. as new data comes along, they (the scientists) incorporate it to make changes to the current model or disregard it altogether and make a better model. unlike in religion wherein they are usually against changing their dogmas. why do you think the CBCP is against the RH Bill? remember when the Catholic Church persecuted scientists and philosophers like Galileo, Copernicus and artists in the middle ages and even in the renaissance era? check here for famous scientists who were persecuted by religion: http://www.reporternews.com/lifestyle/health-and-fitness/scientists-persecuted-throughout-history
'religion' ba talaga o catholics?
it seems ang tinutukoy mong religion is roman catholics... take note... not all religion persecutes iyang mga scientist na nabanggit mo...
dont equate religion as catholics... i think youre referring to Roman Catholics...
sa mga masasamang image ng 'religion'... blame it to professing o bulaang priest/pastor at ang kanilang sakim na ugali... :)
-
'religion' ba talaga o catholics?
it seems ang tinutukoy mong religion is roman catholics... take note... not all religion persecutes iyang mga scientist na nabanggit mo...
dont equate religion as catholics... i think youre referring to Roman Catholics...
sa mga masasamang image ng 'religion'... blame it to professing o bulaang priest/pastor at ang kanilang sakim na ugali... :)
Religion not the Roman Catholic Church alone. the Catholic Church is more popular when religious persecution comes to mind but in no way is it exclusive to them. Check mo yung link tignan mo kung sino yung unang binanggit na scientist. pwede magbasa. in greece, if you're an atheist they will persecute you.
Rhazes (865-925)
Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice.
eto protestant:
Michael Servetus (1511-1553)
Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his ideas about reforming Christianity — it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva – copies of his book were accompanied for good measure.
Socrates was also persecuted in ancient Greece because he was accused of being an atheist or "atheos".
-
Hindi pa rin nasasagot kung bakit hindi umuusbong ang paniniwala na walang relihiyon. Para sa akin ang ibig lang sabihin noon ay may kakulangan. Sa tagal ng panahon kung may ukol bubukol. Eh dahil hindi isang magandang palaisipan lamang. Sa pakikipagtalo o sa mga pag uusap usap walang problema pero hindi maisulong. Lahing bumabalik sa paniniwala na may mas mataas na kapangyarihan. Ngayon dahil ang tao nagpapatupad ng relihiyon may mga pagkakataon na nagaganap ang pagkakamali. Tao nga lang naman. Ngunit hindi natin dapat sisihin ang relihiyon sapagkat nagkakaroon din ng sariling interes mga namumuno. Kung gusto natin suruin ang relihiyon tignan natin o suruin natin ang naging buhay ng Panginoong Jesus. Gawin natin itong batayan. Hindi mga kamalian ng mga taong namumuno o mapait na karanasan ng mga tao. May kaukulang pagtatalo sa bagay na iyon. Ang relihiyon ba nababatay sa masamang naging gawain ng mga namuno? Sila nga mismo di nila natupad ang ninais ng Panginoong Jesus kung kaya't hindi dapat sila ginagawang batayan para sirain ang relihiyon.
-
@leomarley
The examples you cited merely states that going against the status quo does not do you good. In present times and all throughout history one needs correct timing and proper connections. This is how the world operates. The world as run by men is very different from the world as seen from the eyes of God. How the world is run based on God is totally different.
Believing in him means entrusting to him our lives. This is not in the literal sense but in the spiritual sense. Looking into how Jesus lived his life and argued with scholars at that time means religion based on false teachings has no place. If we are to believe we should base our lives on his examples
-
@leomarley
The examples you cited merely states that going against the status quo does not do you good. In present times and all throughout history one needs correct timing and proper connections. This is how the world operates. The world as run by men is very different from the world as seen from the eyes of God. How the world is run based on God is totally different.
Believing in him means entrusting to him our lives. This is not in the literal sense but in the spiritual sense. Looking into how Jesus lived his life and argued with scholars at that time means religion based on false teachings has no place. If we are to believe we should base our lives on his examples
i merely posted that kasi sabi ni dpogs ang Roman Catholics lang gumagawa nun. again, i don't have problems with people believing what they want as long as they're not hindering human progress. i believe people have the right to believe whatever diety they want or choose not to.
-
Sakin ba reply to?
Hindi pa rin sapat ang mga kasagutan mo dahil sa simula mas nakararami hindi naniniwala.
Ha? San ka nakakakita ng kulturang walang relihiyon? (Mga Hun lang alam ko.)
Mga 17th o 18th century lang kaya nauso atheism/agnosticism.
Naniniwala ba sa Kristiyanismo? Natural konti pa yun dati.
Mayroon nga noon iyung tinatawag na "religious persecution" kung saan pinapatay din ang mga naniniwala.
Kaya nga. Nagpapatayan mga tao dahil magkaiba pinaniniwalaan nila. Yun nga example ko di ba?
Di raw sakin.
-
Kay leomarley yun sagot ko.
-
Ganun naman talaga sa mundo pag may matinding pagkakaiba sa pananaw dinadaan sa digmaan. Matira ang matibay. Ang panalo tama.
-
Kay leomarley yun sagot ko.
Sorry bro. La ba comment dun sakin?
-
Gamit ko kasi cell ko at hirap ako tumingin sa mga dating sinabi. Dagdag mo pa sa dami ng gawain ko ang naalala ko lang ay kay leomarley. Sa pagtutuloy ang sa akin lang talaga ay patungkol sa sagot habang kaharap mo ang Panginoon dahil pumanaw ka na.
-
Ganun naman talaga sa mundo pag may matinding pagkakaiba sa pananaw dinadaan sa digmaan. Matira ang matibay. Ang panalo tama.
Sana naman hanggang sa nakaraan lang at wag na "tama" yung ganun sa panahon natin ngaun di ba? Peace lang. La naman tayo kontrol sa ituturo satin ng kultura natin.
Sa pagtutuloy ang sa akin lang talaga ay patungkol sa sagot habang kaharap mo ang Panginoon dahil pumanaw ka na.
Bakit nga kailangan sagutin pa? Di ba sa Kristiyanismo alam ng Diyos ang lahat? Imbes na ang isasagot, ang mga itatanong ang dapat pinoproblema ng mga di naniniwala. Dami ba naman problema sa mundo.
-
Sorry bro. La ba comment dun sakin?
bka leomarly is suspecting chief that you are just a double account.....just speculating ;D
-
any moderator can check this.
-
Let's simplify the discussion.
Since this is the atheism/agnosticism thread, the predominant issue should be whether or not God exists.
I doubt if it's possible to prove God exists. If proving that Jesus existed is hard enough, then proving the existence of God Almighty must be even harder.
But I'm still curious. Can any theist here try proving the existence of God?
-
bka leomarly is suspecting chief that you are just a double account.....just speculating ;D
i think directed naman kay rascal yung mga questions ni Absurdist.
-
Pakiulit na lang iyung tanong.
-
tanong ko lang since you stand to not to believe in God kung meron kayong mga anak ituturo nyo ba sa kanila ang pagiging atheism/agnosticism ?
-
tanong ko lang since you stand to not to believe in God kung meron kayong mga anak ituturo nyo ba sa kanila ang pagiging atheism/agnosticism ?
FYI lang. i do not necessarily do not believe in a higher being but i don't believe that if there is a "God" it's not the one being depicted in the bible, quran, etc. to answer your question, i won't force the child to believe in a specific God and/or religion. i'll let him decide whether or not he wants to believe in a God/religion when he comes to age. if i'll have it my way, i won't let the child be baptized into a religion.
-
FYI lang. i do not necessarily do not believe in a higher being but i don't believe that if there is a "God" it's not the one being depicted in the bible, quran, etc. to answer your question, i won't force the child to believe in a specific God and/or religion. i'll let him decide whether or not he wants to believe in a God/religion when he comes to age. if i'll have it my way, i won't let the child be baptized into a religion.
i agree: baptizing a child - particularly a newborn - for me is a big NO. Bautismuhan lang ang tao o maski na bata kapag kusang loob silang pumayag o nagvolunteer na magpabautismo.
-
What do you call a baptized roman catholic who no longer wants to be a catholic and doesnt want to belong to any religion? Atheist din ba yun? Kasi parami ng parami ang mga taong nakikilala ko na ganito.
-
What do you call a baptized roman catholic who no longer wants to be a catholic and doesnt want to belong to any religion? Atheist din ba yun? Kasi parami ng parami ang mga taong nakikilala ko na ganito.
Theist pa din siguro sir. As I understand, ayaw mo lang yung mga doctrines purported by the Roman Catholic church but since you still believe that there is a God, you still want to find a religion that you would find better to enhance your relationship with him.
-
What do you call a baptized roman catholic who no longer wants to be a catholic and doesnt want to belong to any religion? Atheist din ba yun? Kasi parami ng parami ang mga taong nakikilala ko na ganito.
protestant or theist (sabi nga ni Sir Sirhc)
for me, any member ng roman catholic na ayaw nang ma-associate as catholic ay protestante na agad.
-
Theist pa din siguro sir. As I understand, ayaw mo lang yung mga doctrines purported by the Roman Catholic church but since you still believe that there is a God, you still want to find a religion that you would find better to enhance your relationship with him.
ah okay! I believe there is a higher being but I dont want to be associated to ANY religion at all, though I have high respect for all of them...
-
protestant or theist (sabi nga ni Sir Sirhc)
for me, any member ng roman catholic na ayaw nang ma-associate as catholic ay protestante na agad.
Ganun? Protestante na agad? Di ba pwedeng Spiritual lang???
-
ah okay! I believe there is a higher being but I dont want to be associated to ANY religion at all, though I have high respect for all of them...
Definitely, Theist is the more appropriate term for you.
-
Definitely, Theist is the more appropriate term for you.
Thank you very much sir!
-
1. dahil ibig sabihin nun ay sarili mo lang iniisip mo. diba christianity is doing good things for others?
2. 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?
Himayin ko lang pero ang ganda ng point mo for dicussion:
1. Christianity is about a relationship with God. You are also correct na hindi tama yun sarili mo lang ang iniisip mo. And chirstianity is doing good things for God, and not for others. Sa mga ibang nakakakita, it's probable na ang tingin nila is good work for others pero and intention supposedly is good works for God. It should come naturally just like the instinct ng isang magulang sa kanyang anak. Kaya may mga tao na kapag pinuri mo or pinasalamatan re nagawa nila, they redirect the praise to God.
2. Though it may seem na sarili mo lang ang iniisip mo with regards to salvation, since it is a personal relationship with God, salvation din is personal. You can guide others as to the meaning and purpose of salvation pero it will still be personal because it will be the person's choice if he wants salvation. Pero you are again correct na gumagawa ka ng mabuti sa kapwa para maisalba mo ang sarili mo is wrong. Salvation is not about doing good works otherwise, ang next question would be, hanggang kailan ang paggawa or measurement ng mabuti before ka masalaba. Salvation is about repentance from your sins, asking God for forgiveness, and accepting Jesus as your Savior because Jesus died for our sins.
-
But I'm still curious. Can any theist here try proving the existence of God?
In order to answer that big question Philosophy professor Peter Kreeft proposed 5 questions that we must first answer with regards to this question of existence of God.
-First, is the question whether something exists or not. Can a thing exist whether we know it or not.
-Second is the question of whether we “know” it exists. In order to answer this affirmatively is to presuppose that first question is also answered affirmatively. Although a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.
-Third, is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge.
-Fourth, is the question whether these reasons amount to proof. In most cases reasons are not proof, but are probabilities.
-Fifth is the question if there is proof, is the proof a scientific proof or a philosophical proof which is just as valid.
Based on the 5 question we can answer in the affirmative to first four but not on the fifth. Simply put God exists, we can know that He exists, we have reasons and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof. Proving something that exists doesn’t always has to be scientific proof…..There are many arguments that favor the existence of God. Like arguments from cause and effect, from history, from conscience or man’s unending search for reason and purpose, from existence of moral values and my favorite arguments from existence of design!
It’s impossible to disprove that God is real……because we have yet to see or know of anyone who has proven that God doesn’t exist! In addition there is absolutely no way to know that He “doesn’t exist”. Thus the opposite is also true…….if God does exists, then it must therefore be possible to prove it or to know it.
Aside from all those arguments for the existence of God that I’ve mentioned there is another way to know that God exists and is real!
And that is by having a real, living, personal relationship with Him! Mutual existence is a prerequisite for a relationship. To put it in another manner; we know our parents exists or existed, we have a personal relationship with them and therefore we know they exists! So I wouldn’t have to prove or disprove their existence…we implicitly know they exist because of our relationship.
So given the two options whether God exists or not, it’s ultimately a person’s personal choice…..it’s that thing called Free Will and faith (or lack of it) that determines his fate.
-
is being 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist' the same as "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" - the unforgivable sin?
-
is being 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist' the same as "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" - the unforgivable sin?
I don't think so because the atheist is not part of that group, right?
-
is being 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist' the same as "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" - the unforgivable sin?
Taken from:
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/10/what-is-the-unforgivable-sin/
“If you’re worried that you may be guilty of the unforgivable sin, you almost certainly are not,” Rick Cornish aptly points out in his book Five Minute Theologian. “Concern about committing it reveals the opposite attitude of what the sin is. Those who might be guilty wouldn’t care because they have no distress or remorse over the possibility.”
Jesus talked about the unforgivable sin in Matthew 12:31-32: “And I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Let’s face it – that’s a very sobering teaching! But let’s put it into context. Note that Jesus didn’t address his comments to his disciples or a mere crowd. He was talking specifically to Pharisees who had personally witnessed his miracle of completely and instantly healing a blind and mute demon-possessed man (Matthew 12:22). Rather than acknowledging the obvious fact that Jesus was exercising divine powers, the Pharisees were so spiritually depraved that they attributed his power to Satan (v. 24).
“Their problem was not blind ignorance, but willful rejection,” pointed out Cornish. “That deliberate refusal to believe, even though knowing the truth, seems to be what Jesus called the unforgivable sin.”
As the Quest Study Bible puts it, “Jesus gave the solemn warning in these verses to people whose hard-heartedness placed them on the brink of disaster. Blasphemy against the Spirit evidently is not just a one-time offense; rather, it is an ongoing attitude of rebellion – a stubborn way of life that continually resists, rejects and insults the Holy Spirit. This is what makes it, in effect, an eternal sin (Mark 3:29). Blasphemy against the Spirit is not unforgivable because of something done unintentionally in the past, but because of something being done deliberately and unrelentingly in the present.”
So if you’re an authentic Christian, don’t spend time fretting over whether you have accidentally committed this unforgivable offense. “There is no biblical evidence that a genuine Christian can commit this (unforgivable) sin,” says the Apologetics Study Bible. “Fear that one has done so is probably a good sign that one hasn’t, for full-fledged apostasy is a defiant rejection of everything Christian and lacks the tender conscience that would be worried about such an action.”
Another point of view:
Question: "What is the unpardonable sin / unforgivable sin?"
Answer: The case of the “unpardonable sin/unforgivable sin” or “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:22-32 . The term “blasphemy” may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” We would apply the term to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to Him. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This case of blasphemy, however, is a specific one called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31 . In this passage, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that He was possessed by the demon Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24 ). In Mark 3:30 , Jesus is very specific about what exactly they did to commit “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
This blasphemy then has to do with accusing Jesus Christ (in person, on earth) of being demon-possessed. There are other ways to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (such as lying to Him, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10 ), but the accusation against Jesus was the blasphemy that was unpardonable. This specific unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today.
The only unpardonable sin today is that of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The only condition in which someone would have no forgiveness is if he/she is not among the “whoever” that believes in Him. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ). To reject the only means of salvation is to condemn oneself to an eternity in hell because to reject the only pardon is, obviously, unpardonable.
Many people fear they have committed some sin that God cannot or will not forgive, and they feel there is no hope for them, no matter what they do. Satan would like nothing better than to keep us laboring under this misconception. The truth is that if a person has this fear, he/she needs only to come before God, confess that sin, repent of it, and accept God’s promise of forgiveness. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9 ). This verse assures us that God is ready to forgive any sin—no matter how heinous—if we come to Him in repentance. If you are suffering under a load of guilt today, God is waiting with His arms open in love and compassion for you to come to Him. He will never disappoint or fail to pardon those who do.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/unpardonable-sin.html#ixzz3SpJC4aaJ
I don't think so because the atheist is not part of that group, right?
I think so sir. But its really logical. If you don't believe in the God of Christianity, then it's logical that you are commiting a serious sin from the Christian God's point of view and therefore do not have salvation. But then again it's not of importance to the atheist or unbeliever kasi they don't believe in said faith. How can you be saved by a God you don't believe?
And same goes I think for the muslims. If you do not believe in thier God Allah, then you are considered an infidel, and of course, walang salvation. Ang difference lang probably is as Christians, you are so commanded to love your enemies including atheists, unbelievers and theists. :-*
-
I think so sir. But its really logical. If you don't believe in the God of Christianity, then it's logical that you are commiting a serious sin from the Christian God's point of view and therefore do not have salvation. But then again it's not of importance to the atheist or unbeliever kasi they don't believe in said faith. How can you be saved by a God you don't believe?
And same goes I think for the muslims. If you do not believe in thier God Allah, then you are considered an infidel, and of course, walang salvation. Ang difference lang probably is as Christians, you are so commanded to love your enemies including atheists, unbelievers and theists. :-*
I don't get this, we cannot fault people for not believing, can we?
-
as Christians, you are so commanded to love your enemies including atheists, unbelievers and theists. :-*
+1 :)
-
ah okay! I believe there is a higher being but I dont want to be associated to ANY religion at all, though I have high respect for all of them...
You sound more like an agnostic theist rather than just a theist.
-
I don't get this, we cannot fault people for not believing, can we?
Yes sir. You're correct with the word we meaning tayo. But it's not we sir, it's the Deity who is faulting people for not believing.
-
Yes sir. You're correct with the word we meaning tayo. But it's not we sir, it's the Deity who is faulting people for not believing.
So for the Deity, anyone not believing is damned?
-
So for the Deity, anyone not believing is damned?
John 3:16
There still hope. :)
-
So for the Deity, anyone not believing is damned?
That's what it says sir. Based on christian scriptures, we must be sinless if we are to die and be with the Lord. However, it is impossible for us to be sinless because everyday na lang, we always sin. Sin of omission, sin of coveting, lying etc. And the Lord knows that for sure. Hence, in the old testament, puro offerings ang ginagawa ng mga israelites. The best calf, cow, bull at kung anu-ano pa to please the Lord. However, imagine a God being perfect, it was not enough. So the Lord, sent Jesus Christ, who was from the very beginning, predestined to die for our sins. Imagine a God being, sending His only Son, for us humans to teach us how to live in His way, and to die for the sins of others. Now that is true Love! You can somehow picture this as a father whose son was convicted of murder by the court and was sentenced to death. As a father that we are, if given a chance to take our son's place in the death chamber, we definitely would, in order to give our son a chance in life.
Then of course, since Jesus was also a Diety, He was resurrected and went back to the Heavenly realm. And since it was Jesus who died at the cross for the sins of man, in order for us the have that salvation, we must first accept Jesus Christ to be our Savour from sin. Hence the assurance of eternal life in the heavenly realm.
John 3:16
There still hope. :)
That is why it is written:
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
In connection with these verses:
John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
sidenote:
Apologies kung medjo na-OT ako dito sa thread na ito.
-
You sound more like an agnostic theist rather than just a theist.
grabe! Di ko na naman alam yun, hehehe, sir leomarley kindly enlighten me kung ano po yung agnostic theist. TIA
-
simple answer from wikipedia:
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.
there are different types of agnostics kasi. there are the agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, apathetic agnostic (thinks a deity may exist that doesn't care about it's creation), strong agnostic (strictly believes that the existence of a deity is unknowable), and weak agnostic(waiting for evidence).
since you believe there is a higher being but don't believe in any form of religion then you are an agnostic theist. i'm somewhere between an apathetic and weak agnostic.
-
An agnostic theist is thus a person who relies on a sort of faith: they believe in a god without the sort of evidence that would entail knowing that their god exist.
sir, mukhang di po yata ako ganito, I know my God and have constant communication and good relationship with him...
-
oh ok, so theist ka nga. hehe
so just to be clear, you believe in the christian God but does not necessarily believe in christian dogmas?
-
simple answer from wikipedia:
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.
there are different types of agnostics kasi. there are the agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, apathetic agnostic (thinks a deity may exist that doesn't care about it's creation), strong agnostic (strictly believes that the existence of a deity is unknowable), and weak agnostic(waiting for evidence).
since you believe there is a higher being but don't believe in any form of religion then you are an agnostic theist. i'm somewhere between an apathetic and weak agnostic.
thanks for the answer sir! Really appreciate it, iba lang siguro ang belief ko sa diyos ko, may kahalong science, math, bible, feng shui at marami pang iba! Hahaha!
-
oh ok, so theist ka nga. hehe
so just to be clear, you believe in the christian God but does not necessarily believe in christian dogmas?
my God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, i also believe in some christian dogmas, though I also believe in some, taoists, budhist, scientologists dogma's. Halo halo, thats why I respect them all.
-
my God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, i also believe in some christian dogmas, though I also believe in some, taoists, budhist, scientologists dogma's. Halo halo, thats why I respect them all.
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.
-
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.
@ sir barrister
i respect yung paniniwala mo sir! Pero Ganyan pala sir ka-limited ang pagkakakilala mo sa kanya. (sorry, wrong reply yung kanina, di tlaga konek yun, intended for someone else)
-
Hindi yata kami nagkaintindihan... :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sometimes religion can cause mental trauma. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/religious-trauma-syndrome-how-some-organized-religion-leads-to-mental-health-problems/?utm_content=buffer81e3c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
-
Atheism and Cannibalism. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_cannibalism)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11796300_736718289788738_5957171840919132292_n.jpg?oh=4c656a6f0f9352240837002b1898a2d6&oe=5614D397&__gda__=1446997021_3ce5d58f485404cc06112db508628db9)
-
Is he likewise a comedian Klaus?
-
You don't know who Penn Jillette is? You're missing out!
-
You don't know who Penn Jillette is? You're missing out!
Yeah I don't. So is he a comedian as well?
-
Yeah I don't. So is he a comedian as well?
Sort of, kind of. He's more known as a magician actually along with his partner Teller. Here they are in action. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJhYySXzOq0)
They also had a documentary/reality show called Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t where they do a lot of debunking of stuff (from paranormal claims to ridiculous political movements).
-
Looking a test track @ YT for my 5" speaker to tests the lows
Until I found a rap song and I liked the lows and notice/heard he was talking about religion.
Listen to the song carefully/closely
No fun intended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBsA2ETp7JA
WARNING: There are some BAD or ALL words in the lyrics