Not everything in the Bible is true...

[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 ...