Not everything in the Bible is true...

[city]

Catholicism by the way was not established by Christ, it was established by the Roman rulers, just to state a fact.

No church was. He didnt came to establish one.

[theveed]

for the atheits, there is no God or afterlife. you will just return to nothingness when you die.

That's fine with me, cremate me, flush me down the toilet, I wouldn't give a crap hehe.

It's the people the dead leave behind that are actually worried about the afterlife.

[Wouie]

oh! hindi pa ba tapos ito? it's an endless debate. may kaibigan akong Muslim at mabait pero once na mauwi tungkol sa religion namin ang usapan itinitigil ko na dahil wala namang mananalo. sa kanya magaling yong paniniwala nya, sa akin naman yong pinaniniwalaan ko.

[Monseratto]

Sir Niky, nakakabilib talaga yung huling mong reply. Down right direct and no holds barred!!! Napa hanga ako talaga!

[oldblue]

Wrong. If you want to be really picky about it. I suggest you try to take into account what constitutes Idolatry... that's excessive worship of an object or person who is not God. According to most religions, the Gods of other religions are not the true God, thus, there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who practice Idolatry, and those who don't.

it's true that a lot of people admire or worship other personalities but most of us do put God above all things. I mean hindi naman siguro ganun ka-shallow ang mga tao di'ba?

simply put, and I stand by it, there are only two kinds of people ngaun: those who believe in a supreme being and those who dont.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who say there are two kinds of people, and those who don't. I don't. I could tell you there are two kinds of people, myself: Men and Women. That's absolute. Does that make one subgroup better than another? Does that take into account Women who act like men, and Men who act like women? How do they feel about it?

with due respect sir, but I think you're talking about gender here. and if we're to follow what you're getting at then, I believe you're wrong. It's not absolute bec. there is also what we call a third ***

Once you set a dividing line, you are classifying people and setting one set of standards for one, and one set for another.

I'm not classifying and neither am I setting the standards. The distinction has been present and the standards have been existing, even before I was born.

forgive me sir for saying, but it's bull to say otherwise that there is no such line. even the atheists themselves distinguish us from them. words like these are only useful on election campaigns or feel-good speeches. but hardly, is it a reality.

And again, I say that a non-monotheistic society doesn't qualify. Peace and order has been achieved over large regions by various civilizations without a unifying religion. The pantheistic houses of the Greeks and Romans represent an attempt to unify religions in order to maintain order, but those came afterwards, not before.

why dont they qualify? multiple God or common God or God vs. God people -> we all still belong to one side of the equation: people who acknowledge that there is far more superior being(s) than us. the counterparts of which are christians atheists who attack the bible, muslim atheists who attack the Koran, budhists, hindu atheists etc ... etc .. but still they're part of the other side of the equation: those who dont believe and those who like to think that the universe centers upon them and only them. essentialists vs. existentialists.

Let's run that scenario again with a religious society. The exact same thing happens. Torquemada, Napoleon, Hitler. IAny strong leader with a "God complex" can ruin a society, with or without religion. They can also make the society work, with or without religion, but benevolent dictators are rare (and some would argue, non-existent).

like I said sobrang before pa, people who kill and destroy lives in the name of God are really Godless people incognito -> the worst of the atheists. their true purpose in life was to force their ambitions no matter the cost. it just so happens that religion is very powerful tool to manipulate with and is a very useful alibi too no guilt, no fear, no higher being to tell them that they are wrong bec. they never believed in a God in the 1st place.

I hope that's sarcasm. Atheism has about as much to do with communism as Catholicism has to do with Naziism. In other words, the two may both be present, but they aren't a cause and effect relationship.

i didnt say that they were a cause and effect relationship. but come to think of it, the communists-atheists are really smart. they know there will be a cause, but they have already played down the effects or at least, suppressed it. They know that not to believe in God is like the ultimate expression of freedom. they can push their minds to the limit minus the conditions set by religion: (this thing bad, this thing good, that thing will make God angry, that thing will make God grant you wish )

" but wait!" they said siguro. and they analyzed forward, "what can be an effect of ultimate freedom? will this also translate to free-for-all between communist-atheists?" siguro they realized that it can be possible. after all what's really bugging atheists ba talaga, they dont like the word God, superior, supreme, omnipotent, omniscient etc.. or simply put, a being that tells them what to do and what not to do. translate it to communist hierarchy and only time will tell when lowly atheists rebel against the atheist elite. so the solution: curtail freedom! and therefore ideal communism is born.

main reason why I'm challenging the atheists here. build and maintain society, wherein there is no God, but there is absolute freedom! if you succeed, then you have our ears and our admiration. but there's a catch , your society must survive thousands of years also like other religions to be worthy of our attention.

of course, this is not fair. thousands of years after, patay na tayo lahat . so pano na yun wager hehehe. ganito na lang, cite an atheistic society that lived harmoniously and independently and that survived thousands of year na.

Now, let's go back to what you said. There are two kinds of people. Are you the same kind of person as Osama bin Laden? He is definitely a God-fearing man. But if he isn't, and he is just pretending... his followers sure are... it's their absolute belief in Allah that allows them to kill themselves. So... does it feel good to be the same kind of person as they?

If you want to redefine God-fearing and Godless, go ahead. There's no absolute definition that would put all the good people in the world on the same side of the line. They're scattered in-between.

All things are relative, and religion has its place in society, but the lack of a central religion with a specific deity does not automatically negate a society or render it worthless.

It's that kind of thinking that fuels war and genocide, to consider "Godless" people as not being as good as "God-fearing" people. It's good that you can extend your concept of "God-fearing" to include all religions, but a lot of people can't.

first of all sir, I dont think like Bin Laden. sobra ka naman what is my kind of thinking ba sir, am I wishing the atheists dead? am I waging war or even a psych war against them?

there are only 2 points that I'm trying to express here:

First. if you are very strong on your beliefs or disbeliefs then be brave enough to prove it independently. ang storya kasi ng atheist dito eh parang relationship ng father and son. the son hates the father's guts, hates everything the father stands for, and therefore, decides that his father dont exist anymore. But the son still continues to benefit from the Father in terms of financial support, still continues to live in an environment that his Father nurtured him into since he was a child, and still continues to badmouth his father from his sisters/brothers/relatives/friends, most of whom, still respects his father.

Tell me, Is that a noble thing to do? i'm sure the noblest thing to do is to be on your own, on your way and find your own destiny independent of your father and his chosen environment. i'm sure naman nobility is a trait that can be present in both a religous person and an atheist.

Second. Although it may seem that religion divides people and history is proof that religion caused wars and suffering between religious groups, I still believe that Godless people are the ones pulling the strings.

why? for the very reason that they have no qualms in harming/killing/destroying other people/groups to futher their own ambitions. Most religions are for the preservation of life. so therefore, by logic, anyone who counters that does not care about the teaching of that particular religion and their own God as well. and who's in the best position and the best interest to challenge their own God? Godless people.

now how come there are jihads/holy war in Islam, retribution/destruction in the bible? the answer is I really dont know. it could be a defense clause or strategy or something. or in other words, we, who are in the faith, are also required to defend it.

The problem with some people kasi, they mistake religion as a means not to fight back. just to accept, to love one another even our enemies etc etc.. if religious people fight back then automatically they're no different from aggressors.

hindi naman siguro sinabi ni Jesus na pag binato ka ng bato, eh iharap mo ng bukang-buka ang muka mo para tamaan pa ng mas maraming pang bato and the the kingdom of heaven is yours.

ang sinabi nya batuhin mo ng tinapay, which also means, that you also have to fight back but with another method of fighting back. this time bread, not stones. and that is why religious people also have to rise up to defend our faith ...

[SNAKE V6]

Wow, hirap talaga ng topic na to, lalo na nung lumabas yung Da Vinci code at yung Judas Gospel. Makes you think of the absolute validity of the bible, and if any one race (e.g. Romans, etc.) have really controlled our faith. Diba yung mga Romans are part of Christ's prosecutors, why then are they the primary avocates of Catholicsm? And the Cruzades have killed just to push Christianity, even the late Pope John Paul 2 publicly apologized for these. Where are the lost Gnostic gospels? Why haven't we been educated about that? Who filtered the Bible? I mean who could've documented the creation when nothing was present? My teacher said Divine Providence, I believed her, when I was Grade 7. But now? Science is doing reverse engineering
and that is where I am clinging on.

Definitely there is a supreme being (God, Allah, Buddha ... ), creating all the balances that you see, and feel. Whether its the Big Bang or Divine Providence, Adam and Eve or the Evolution (which I am now more inclined to believe), someone must have done this from the very start.

Well, I think it's good to wander some time, and see where you end up. Some have switched religions several times and gone full circle. We can't just go by on blind faith, so we must discover and ask questions, be enlightened, question the bible. Is this teaching logical? I read the new testament, esp those of Jesus' teaching and haven't found anything that will not make you a better person.

In one way or the other, God will reveal Himself to you, only if you search for Him.

[oldblue]

*city welcome back!

I'm not sure how you came up with this idea but arent we in a world of believers with superiority complex?..."chosen people"...how many children and young women have died to date with this notion written in heads of the believers?"...if many of us are surviving today, can you count how many have died from the first time man entered into religion? And remember, hitler was a believer...he have his own religion and beliefs.....how many jews did he killed?

Can you explain in detail what are you trying to convey in your message? Parang nalalabuan kasi ako e.

sir pakibasa na lang yun 2 points sa taas.

Please don't associate communism with atheism or vice versa. It's completely a different category. Atheism is never an ideology or form of government. Hope this clears it up.

i cant help by associate bec. both dont believe in a god.

is this a new commandment from god or from the church? defend the faith?

sir paste ko na lang First commandment from wikipedia

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

interestingly, tignan mo ito *city: kunin ko sa itaas

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

i think this refers to science: our new world's Atheist producer.

Read the old testament and you'll see if the god of the OT is offensive or not.

Most are offended of the truth old blue. The truth hurts.

it's only natural for our God to force his might. after all, our ancestors were a little-less than savages at that time. discovery era eh hehehe unlike modern humans, we're more civilized and intelligent.

[oldblue]

*sir niky

taken from wikipedia

You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain.
The literal meaning forbids misuse of any of God’s names in insincere or empty conversation, although it is allowed in swearing sincere oaths and should be used reverently in all worship.
In the spiritual meaning, the name of God means all the teachings of the Word, which are not to be used insincerely or evilly.
Taking God’s name in vain in the celestial sense means to deny the complete Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and to deny the holiness of the Word.

[SNAKE V6]

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

interestingly, tignan mo ito *city: kunin ko sa itaas

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

*oldblue:

Wow, the First commandment as stated there is IMO, not applicable to us anymore for we have not been taken out of Egypt. I firmly believe also that God does not punish a child for his parents' faults. He may have had, but not anymore. He had told Noah after the flood that He will not do such a thing again.

That is why Jesus made a new commandment right, in fact referred to these as the greatest commandments?

1. Love God with all your heart, soul...

2. Love one another as I have loved you.

*oldblue:

i think this refers to science: our new world's Atheist producer.

Well most scientists think of it another way. (And I do too, although I am an engineer, not a typical scientist though ). They see science and the discoveries made about creation and evolution actually strengthens the fact that there is a God, for if even if one nano-particle was slightly imbalanced, there would be no universe as we know it. And have you read the actual facts and evidences of Evolution? If you can, do try to get hold of a National Geo Issue, it explains the real concept of Darwin's theory especially on the evolution of viruses. Wherein a certain controllable virus type after several years have evoloved into a virus uncontrollable by the same medicine. There are more evidences, no monkey-human though. I think it's a good reading for those who are in pursuit of our origins and how the world came and is evolving to be.

But that is your belief bro and I respect that. So peace.

[Monseratto]

i think this refers to science: our new world's Atheist producer.

Gee...I guess you still believe that the earth is the center of the Universe, the Sun and all other planet circle around us. and that dinosaurs never existed. If you believe otherwise, does this make you also an atheist?

[CtrlAltDel]

i think oldblue just surpassed niky's and city's individual posts on length, heheh. kidding aside, way to go oldblue! interesting reading.

[city]

Hi Oldblue,

I dont think i can continue arguing with your points. Not that I can't understand what you're saying but I believe you failed miserably to understand the points that were raised and made irresponsible conclusions to make the believers blameless of the blood that tainted the surface of the earth up until now and have expressed hatred to all atheists.

Your statements reveal how much you lack.

I pray Niky doesn't feel the same. (sarcasm)

[uls]

pls. watch this video po

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

[Gumusut_Amige]

simple lang ang sa akin... meron ng batas ang Diyos na dapat sundin bago gumawa ang mga tao ng kanyang sariling batas. Ibig sabihin una pa man meron ng Diyos, sino ang naghusga sa mga makasalanan noong unang panahon noong wala pa ang batas ng tao?

[cumbersome]

As always, it's the way we live that counts the most, because the world will always see us first, not the books that we read and the percentage of truth in them. We can argue endelessly about the merits of Christian life, or the sheer improbability of Christ walking on water or rising from the dead, or how much science have shed light on the the God argument but in the end, we are persons first, before we are ideas, or concepts, or what-have-you. Whether we're aetheists or jainists or marxist or diet-obsessed, until we show our lives to be as admirable as our faith claims it to be, then no amount of argument can ever bring across our message, and maybe, all that time debating will be better spent on introspection.

[GlennSter]

makakagawa na yata ako ng libro o pelikula sa mga sinusulat niyo ah...mapagkakaitaan ito.

[theveed]

Parang Once Upon A Time In China series yan di matatapos hehehe

[niky]

...
simply put, and I stand by it, there are only two kinds of people ngaun: those who believe in a supreme being and those who dont.

...there is also what we call a third ***

I'm not classifying and neither am I setting the standards. The distinction has been present and the standards have been existing, even before I was born.

Who set the standards, then?

You didn't read enough into what I wrote. I wrote that atheists don't necessarily believe in nothing, they just don't believe in a God. That means that they can have a moral compass, whereas it is perfectly possible for pantheists to have none or for a religion to give them a skewed one.

I was using Gender as a comparison. If you can accept that there are people that are neither male nor female, can't you accept different kinds of religious and atheists, either?

...but it's bull to say otherwise that there is no such line...

Bull. Like I said, don't generalize all atheists on the rantings of a few, I will stop comparing you to Bin Laden if you stop generalizing like this. And yet fundamentalists regard everyone else of different religions as Godless, yet you still include them under your umbrella, don't you?

why dont they qualify? ... those who dont believe and those who like to think that the universe centers upon them and only them. essentialists vs. existentialists.

Pan-theists don't qualify among the religious people you're assuming all religious people to be. There are many gods in a pantheon, with many different teachings. One God may teach war, killing and death, and is accepted as a true God... Mars for the Romans, Shiva and Kali (goddess of thieves and stranglers) for the Hindus. Thus, it is possible to have no moral compass, because you can follow whichever God you want, and do anything you want... just like existentialists.

Atheism does not equal existentialism. Just because an atheist does not believe in a God at the center of the Universe, doesn't mean that he believes that he is.

If you want to find people who attack the holy books, Muslim clerics bash the Bible and Christian scholars attack the Qu'ran all the time.

...and they analyzed forward, "what can be an effect of ultimate freedom? will this also translate to free-for-all between communist-atheists?" siguro they realized that it can be possible. after all what's really bugging atheists ba talaga, they dont like the word God, superior, supreme, omnipotent, omniscient etc.. or simply put, a being that tells them what to do and what not to do. translate it to communist hierarchy and only time will tell when lowly atheists rebel against the atheist elite. so the solution: curtail freedom! and therefore ideal communism is born.

You're so far off course, it's not funny. Communism does not equal Atheism does not equal Libertarianism (belief in ultimate freedom/anarchy). China mandates atheism to negate the political influence of various churches. They don't even believe in freedom. Russian Communists are primarily of the Russian Orthodox (Catholic) faith, and Communism started in Russia.

Oh, and most Communists in the Philippines are Muslim.

...build and maintain society, wherein there is no God, but there is absolute freedom!

...ganito na lang, cite an atheistic society that lived harmoniously and independently and that survived thousands of year na.

Again, Atheism is not Libertarianism. Please, read up on political theories before you post this stuff.

Read the history of the world, too, it would be educational. It is because of societies with no clear spiritual center that Christianity has survived, because it was able to convert those societies to Christianity. The Roman empire, the pagan kings of Europe... If not for Pagans... Christianity would be dead.

An atheistic society that's survived for thousands of years: China. The main "religion" of Classical China is Confucianism, which is a non-deitic philosophy which preaches the "Golden Rule" (do unto others...). Confucianism doesn't state that there is a God, and is considered by many as an agnostic (or... *gasp*... maybe atheistic?) philosophical movement.

...I dont think like Bin Laden...

If all atheists are exactly like the ones who rant and rave and spit in the face of religion, and you say that everything is absolute and that there are two sides, you must accept that he is also on your side.

there are only 2 points that I'm trying to express here:

...ang storya kasi ng atheist dito eh parang relationship ng father and son. the son hates the father's guts, hates everything the father stands for, and therefore, decides that his father dont exist anymore...

i'm sure the noblest thing to do is to be on your own, on your way and find your own destiny independent of your father and his chosen environment. i'm sure naman nobility is a trait that can be present in both a religous person and an atheist.

Are you giving a specific example of an atheist? The story of the Prodigal Son doesn't apply to everyone. And you still have to prove that Christian society has not benefitted from non-religious to make this stick. We have turned away from our "pagan" forefathers in embracing the Christian faith... does that make us unworthy of a Filipino birthright?

...I still believe that Godless people are the ones pulling the strings.

why? for the very reason that they have no qualms in harming/killing/destroying other people/groups to futher their own ambitions. Most religions are for the preservation of life. so therefore, by logic, anyone who counters that does not care about the teaching of that particular religion and their own God as well. and who's in the best position and the best interest to challenge their own God? Godless people.

You confuse Atheism with Machiavellianism. And how can an atheist challenge his own God when he has none?

And if you say that all the evil done is done by Godless people, even if they themselves think they are God-fearing, then it is hopeless to argue with you, for you've made up your mind that all God-fearing people are perfectly moral. Which is a fallacy. We're all human, to some degree, and evil can exist in even the most faithful... or didn't you notice this in the Bible?

now how come there are jihads/holy war in Islam, retribution/destruction in the bible? the answer is I really dont know. it could be a defense clause or strategy or something. or in other words, we, who are in the faith, are also required to defend it.
...ang sinabi nya batuhin mo ng tinapay, which also means, that you also have to fight back but with another method of fighting back. this time bread, not stones. and that is why religious people also have to rise up to defend our faith ...

What I am trying to point out, is not all religions preach peace and brotherhood, or in countering aggression with peaceful resistance, like Jesus or Gandhi would have us do... For them, killing in the name of God is perfectly justifiable in the eyes of God. Read the Qu'ran or the Torah, if you don't believe me... defense of the faith can be used to justify a lot of really evil things proscribed by the faith in the first place.

You have a very narrow mindset and world-view about what constitutes and atheist and what constitutes a believer.

Not all atheists are immoral, and not all believers have the same morality as you. You are talking as if you assume all believers share Christian ethical values. They do not. That is why atrocities and wars can be conducted in the name of religion.

But, like I said, religion is not to blame for everything, as I believe that atrocities and wars would take place anyway, it's human nature. And human goodness does not only spring from religion. A man's moral compass may be guided by religion, philosophy or a personal code of ethics. It may be tempered and changed by interaction with those around him.

And religion can change, too. It is not absolute. The ethical values we have today are not a 1:1 comparison with the ethical values of old. Many atrocities happened in the name of religion in the old days, precisely because people believed that these were just in the eyes of God. Over time, modern morality and ethics were developed, which Western Civilization adjusted to.

In the eyes of the old Church, many scientists were devils... even if they were devoutly of the faith. Over time, that attitude has changed. The modern Church is more tolerant of science and progress. It's more tolerant towards Jews, too. There's no more talk of the woman being submissive and secondary to her man, and the misconceptions regarding Magdalene have finally been cleared up (although the new misconception of Magdalene as Jesus' wife seems to be catching on... fanciful and stupid as it may seem...), although women still aren't granted the right to be in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, despite the great role of women in the Church in its very beginnings.

Thus, modern, moral and ethical Christianity is a relatively good system, and it can only get better as developments both within and without the faith continue to shape it. Modern Islam is changing, too, adapting to modern ideas about equality. We can only hope that it changes fast enough.

But to equate modern Christianity with all religion (including quasi-Christian cults), or to say that all true believers are completely moral and all non-believers are completely immoral, that's just a stretch too far.

[niky]

And, *oldblue: If we're engaging in empty conversation, you're using the name of God in vain, too...

sir paste ko na lang First commandment from wikipedia

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

interestingly, tignan mo ito *city: kunin ko sa itaas

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

i think this refers to science: our new world's Atheist producer.

Again, this assumes that all scientists are atheists. Which is patently untrue. Einstein once said, as he was troubled and could not accept quantum physics: "God does not play dice with the Universe". He believed in an ultimate creator and cause and could not bring himself to believe that the Universe was the creation of random happenstance. Many scientists cannot believe this either.

Charles Darwin was a Christian. He held off publishing his work for years because he was afraid of being excommunicated, like Galileo was. His defender was an atheist, though. Sir Thomas Huxley defended Darwin's theories against the traditionalists, and protected Darwin from their ridicule.

Agnosticism is not a creed, but a principle, which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle
...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

In other words, keep an open mind.

Many Paleontologists, Archeologists and Historians are religious. Even those who produce work that seems to go against Church teachings are religious. They still do this because they recognize that dogmatic thought and belief in God aren't necessarily the same thing, and they can keep an open mind and see the world as it is.

Many are drawn to science as a way to search for answers. Some go into theoretical physics, hoping to catch a glimpse of the true face of God. Just because they don't believe in your version of God, doesn't make them Godless.

it's only natural for our God to force his might. after all, our ancestors were a little-less than savages at that time. discovery era eh hehehe unlike modern humans, we're more civilized and intelligent.

Christianity was born in the first century. Long after the rise of civilization, the concept of justice and the rise of democracy. Science and logic were invented before Christianity, too. Islam is even younger.

i think oldblue just surpassed niky's and city's individual posts on length, heheh. kidding aside, way to go oldblue! interesting reading.

Actually, I've been having to limit my posts... I've hit the 10,000 character limiter twice already.

simple lang ang sa akin... meron ng batas ang Diyos na dapat sundin bago gumawa ang mga tao ng kanyang sariling batas. Ibig sabihin una pa man meron ng Diyos, sino ang naghusga sa mga makasalanan noong unang panahon noong wala pa ang batas ng tao?

Uhmmm.... man? Wrong and right are defined by society, and are upheld by the guardians of that society. This may be guided by a spiritual leader, but sometimes, the political leader may take both roles upon himself. And in the post above, I gave an example of an ethical system (Confucianism) derived without a Supreme intelligence (although it does postulate the existence of spirits). Buddhism doesn't have a creator-god, either. They worship the divine oneness... Nirvana. Buddha himself is worshipped as having attained Nirvana, but he isn't a God.

As always, it's the way we live that counts the most, because the world will always see us first, not the books that we read and the percentage of truth in them. We can argue endelessly about the merits of Christian life, or the sheer improbability of Christ walking on water or rising from the dead, or how much science have shed light on the the God argument but in the end, we are persons first, before we are ideas, or concepts, or what-have-you. Whether we're aetheists or jainists or marxist or diet-obsessed, until we show our lives to be as admirable as our faith claims it to be, then no amount of argument can ever bring across our message, and maybe, all that time debating will be better spent on introspection.

Gospel. It's the person, not the creed.

Parang Once Upon A Time In China series yan di matatapos hehehe

So... when's the next "Once Upon A Time"? Sell-out na si Jet Li... feeling Hollywood siya ngayon...

[theveed]

I'll be blunt, boss Old Blue, kulang nalang you'll start calling people who don't see your religious views as "infidels".