Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[indie boi]

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.

[alistair]

That is not an answers to my questions?

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."

[dpogs]

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???

[alistair]

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.

[dpogs]

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???

[alistair]

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.

[dpogs]

so... can we now rule out that a new born child neither an atheist or theist???

[alistair]

"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.

[dpogs]

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.

[av_phile1]

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.  

[alistair]

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.

[alistair]

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.

[av_phile1]

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, ...

[alistair]

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.

[dpogs]

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".

[alistair]

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.

[oweidah]

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.

[oweidah]

@dpogs and av_phile1 - will catholics be saved? is the catholic God the same as the christian God?  

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"

[alistair]

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?

[av_phile1]

@dpogs and av_phile1 - will catholics be saved? is the catholic God the same as the christian God?  

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.  

[oweidah]

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.

[vx2]

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)

[oweidah]

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 ...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.

[dpogs]

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:, 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.

[vx2]

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.

[oweidah]

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.

[vx2]

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!

[oweidah]

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!

Alhamdullilah! thanks God, praise the Lord Hallelujah !

Shalom, Peace be upon you, Assalaamalaikum

[vx2]

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.

[oweidah]

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...