Not everything in the Bible is true...

[Psalm136:2]

Ang alam kong mga atheists ay yung mga taong sa buong buhay nila ay di nila nalaman, nabasa, narinig o nakita ang anumang tungkol sa religion (no matter what kind).

The opposite of these are the "unbelievers"; basically because they don't believe (or don't want to) in any deities, teachings, doctrines, religion, etc.

Others believe in something else; not necessarily religion or beliefs, still they can't be called atheists.

Tama ba o mali?

[niky]

*oldblue:

If you've read about other religions, can you ignore the role of Jihad in Islam? Or the era of conquest in which Yahweh ordered his people (the Jews) to conquer and drive the natives out of the holy land?

I understand that you're Christian, which is why I took the time to point out many examples of other religions to you in my posts. Please don't disregard them.

And when you say the Godless people are those who use religion to destroy other religions, again, I say you are wrong, because many religions order their followers to either destroy or convert other religions. You're still ignoring the facts.

"Godless" people have no material need to subvert or convert followers of other religions if they're not offering a religion of their own.

And you're still completely ignoring the last point. You should read religious books for other religions to see where the differences are.

I've studied some Islam, some Hinduism, and I've read about many other ancient religions as well as current ones. And personally, I think among all religious writings, those concerning Christ himself and Buddha come closest to preaching the most humane and human of religions.

The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the Christian God (I've gone over this ad nauseum in the early parts of this thread). If you read carefully, you will see this.

The Bible is not all true in relation to modern Christianity.

This is not saying it contains willful falsehoods. Instead, this means that the older parts of the Bible should serve as a historical document, showing us the evolution of the Christian morality, and its divergence from the older Judaic faith.

I believe the basic tenets of Christianity are quite valid. But to hold up portions of anceint books predating Christ and not written by him or his immediate followers as Gospel is a fundamentalist fault that distances them from the rest of the faith, and is a cause of much strife, suffering, warfare, and death.

[oldblue]

*oldblue:

If you've read about other religions, can you ignore the role of Jihad in Islam? Or the era of conquest in which Yahweh ordered his people (the Jews) to conquer and drive the natives out of the holy land?

I understand that you're Christian, which is why I took the time to point out many examples of other religions to you in my posts. Please don't disregard them.

And when you say the Godless people are those who use religion to destroy other religions, again, I say you are wrong, because many religions order their followers to either destroy or convert other religions. You're still ignoring the facts.

converting to Islam or to Christianity should not be forced upon a person. If lethal force is being used to convert a group of people to another religion, then that's the time you'll know it is wrong. But when convertion is being done by way of persuasion, hindi na siguro mali iyon. actually, it's one responsibility of being a religious person: spread the good news.

now let's take for example, our very own Spanish colonizers. I'm sure there are two sides to the story of our colonization and conversion to Christianity. Perhaps, some impatient Spanish officials employed dirty tactics like blackmailing, threatening, killing natives who refuse to convert to Christianity. Other Spanish officials did it by the book, no matter how tedious and how long the process of conversion would take.

and so to generalize that the Spanish were ruthless, arrogant, murderous people, who killed,raped,burned our early unwilling ancestors, is like taking only one side of the story as the truth .



__________________________

you know what's wrong with the Old Testament? so wrong that so many people actually find it so offensive and questionable.

There is only but one camera to record it unlike in the New Testament wherein there was a minimum of 4 cameras to record it. 4 cameras -> 4 perspectives -> 4 gospels. recently, nadagdagan pa ang surveillance camera bec. other gospels are surfacing like that of Judas, Philip and Mary Magdalene. 4 distinct point of views/cameras give you a better look at the big picture, dont you think?


The OT has no other existing perspective/point of view to compare/to prove/to disprove the contents, but that doesnt generally mean it's wrong, or wrongful.

I say give the OT the benefit of the doubt bec. in those times, talaga naman magulo/primitive pa. no-read no write pa nga siguro mga 90% ng population noon.




____________________________

regarding Jihad/holy war of the Muslims. I really dont know about them nor their true meaning bec. I havent read the Koran yet. and I'm not planning to either. But one thing is certain though, Jihad/Holy War is being invoked by Muslims when they are being threatened. in other words, it's a form of defense when Godless people from another religion (Chrisitianity) tramples on their beliefs and spirituality.

so fair enough. We Christians call it a Crusade, Muslims call it Jihad but only for defense purposes.

[Flagg]

Being the party pooper that I am, allow me to state that:

You are all OT!

How short and sweet is my post...

[Flagg]

Btw, further to the OT (ahihi):

IMHO, to blame religion for society's ills is like blaming the gun when a man is killed.

The gun didn't kill the man. The man killed the man.

There is no mention of Crusading in the Bible. The Pope (who is just a man) ordered the Crusade.

AFAIK about jihad, it does not translate precisely to 'Holy War.' Again, that is a man's order. Jihad is 'to struggle for faith.'

In Chinese, there is a saying... 'Chap Ching', literally 10,000... but man has given it another meaning...

[theveed]

old blue: Yes I've been an atheist all my life. While I have attempted to be a Catholic (baptised and all), Christian (joined fellowship), Buddhist (reading and doing what most HK people do) and one of my best buds is a Moroccan Muslim, I still don't see why anyone will "need" religion.

Atheist - (n) A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

[Psalm136:2]

Btw, further to the OT (ahihi):

IMHO, to blame religion for society's ills is like blaming the gun when a man is killed.

The gun didn't kill the man. The man killed the man.

There is no mention of Crusading in the Bible. The Pope (who is just a man) ordered the Crusade.

AFAIK about jihad, it does not translate precisely to 'Holy War.' Again, that is a man's order. Jihad is 'to struggle for faith.'

In Chinese, there is a saying... 'Chap Ching', literally 10,000... but man has given it another meaning...

I agree with you at some point. In the Old Testament though, God ordered kings and leaders to conquer (annihilate) tribes, as what Niky said. But this is not to convert them, but mostly to punish them for their ungodly practices.

On the other hand, Jesus also said when he came to live with men; "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Kaya di rin nating pwedeng balewalain ang OT.

[empy]

i've always thought that a substantial part of the Old Testament was written to provide divine justification for the defensive wars and conquest that the Jews/Israel (and their theological descendants, the Christians) waged against the neighboring countries/tribes that are the ancestors of modern-day Arab nations (the Philistines, Assyrians, Persians, etc)

God "ordered" kings to annihilate other nations to "punish them for ungodly practices"? i've never read the Quran, but i wonder what its account is of those wars....?

[niky]

*oldblue: Now, I didn't knock on the conversion of Filipinos, did I ... it's a good point, there are relatively tame conversions, but a lot of times, people are subjugated to the "official" religion of the conquering state by force. There are very few conquering states that do not impose their own religion upon their subjects.

And again, I object to the use of the word "Godless" for those who use force to convert people to their faith. They're not Godless... it's just that the "God" they believe in is different from yours. Again, you're still trying to associate all the evils of the world with Atheism.

You believe atheism to be wrong because of this, but Atheism is very far away from these people. They're fundamentalists. You can't tag them as Atheists if they don't believe that their belief system can be wrong.

And no, they don't do evil because they think they will not be punished. They do evil because they do not know it is wrong.

Fundamentalism is the ironclad belief in a belief system above all others, without sway or tolerance of other beliefs. Atheism is skepticism, or the inacceptance of any belief system without concrete proof.

If a person believes in his heart that he is serving a Divine Master, despite doing bad things, he's not Godless, just misguided... i.e.: He believes in the wrong kind of God or the wrong aspect of God.

Again, I am not saying all atheists are good. Communism was invented by an atheist, and they, like the inquisitors of the middle ages, killed millions of people in "cleansings". But you can't assign the sins of the religious to the unreligious.

In fact, belief in Communism despite proofs that it doesn't work in practice is a form of fundamentalism. Not religious fundamentalism, but political fundamentalism... thus, communists, technically, can't be atheists? In reality, of course, religiously, they can be either atheist or religious, so it doesn't matter.

Now if you were to say these people who did evil things in the name of the Church are not true Christians but tools of Satan, then I'd agree. But if you equate them with atheists, I beg to disagree.

i've always thought that a substantial part of the Old Testament was written to provide divine justification for the defensive wars and conquest that the Jews/Israel (and their theological descendants, the Christians) waged against the neighboring countries/tribes that are the ancestors of modern-day Arab nations (the Philistines, Assyrians, Persians, etc)

God "ordered" kings to annihilate other nations to "punish them for ungodly practices"? i've never read the Quran, but i wonder what its account is of those wars....?

It's likely the same, both the Qu'ran and the Bible are based on the same Old Testament. It's just that Muslims continued the Jewish practices. And I think that they're also still waiting for the Messiah. I could be wrong.

I don't think that the Arabs are directly descended from those old Kingdoms, but it's an interesting question... hmmmmm.

[theveed]

Fundamentalism is the ironclad belief in a belief system above all others, without sway or tolerance of other beliefs. Atheism is skepticism, or the inacceptance of any belief system without concrete proof.

So which is the lesser evil?

Back to the Bible, I still don't see how different this is from "documented gods" of the Greeks...

They are far from being "no read - no write"....

It'll only take a higher level of open-mindedness to make current religion a part of ancient mythology.

[oldblue]

So which is the lesser evil?

Back to the Bible, I still don't see how different this is from "documented gods" of the Greeks...

They are far from being "no read - no write"....

It'll only take a higher level of open-mindedness to make current religion a part of ancient mythology.

i think there were many attempts to just consider the Bible as some form of mythology or ancient epic of some sort. and it's all recorded in history. hindi lang naman tayo mga modern humans nag-question dyan. in the 12th-19th century, history is filled with group of people rebelling against the Church and its teachings: the Bible. some people become skeptics, some people start another religion, some people streamline the bible such as omitting Mary and the Holy spirit as a divine entity.

but you know what? how come the Bible survived until our own generation? with the most controversial book getting so much flak, it's a miracle that it survived until today. with our age of modern communication and instant sharing of new ideas, the bible still withstands the test of time and technology.


and regarding high-level of open-mindedness, dont you think, we, the ones who believe in the Bible, are the open-minded ones? We still hope for it. Unlike you atheists who claim that you are open-minded but are closed to the idea that the Bible is a sacred book and that God exists among us.

[niky]

*oldblue: Between fundamentalism and skepticism, I'll pick skepticism. A fundamentalist can commit evil in the firm belief that he is right. A skepticist will weigh all his options first and try to figure out if he's really in the right.

You do have a right to question skeptics, though, as rejecting the entire Bible outright as inapplicable is also a form of close-mindedness.

Me? I prefer to see it as this: There's both Good and Bad in the Bible, too many authors and too many editors. Since the Bible is supposed to be the living word, it is the duty of Christians of the faith to continually update the Bible and bring it up to modern times.

The Bible is a history of the faith, not just a guidebook. And as it grows and evolves, certain portions of it should become just that, history, while the Gospels should become our new guides. If you say that some practices are from misinterpretation only, what about the Sabbath? Christ himself overturned that ruling, thus, we don't necessarily follow the Judaic Sabbath in modern Christianity. Yet the laws regarding the celebration of the Sabbath still exist in the Bible.

And why does history stop at Roman times? Why not include more books in the Bible as Christianity itself grows? Why is it that the Bible is considered finished after some minor prophet or philosopher puts his last few letters in? Why did it not finish after Jesus' death? Why doesn't it continue until today?

It's not only atheists who should be questioning the Bible, but also believers. By putting your faith and the book to the test, you can only make it stronger. If by questioning, you lose faith, then you aren't very faithful in the first place. If by questioning and revising and making the Bible relevant to the Modern Christian, you make the Church stronger, so be it.

[oldblue]

*oldblue: Fundamentalism is the ironclad belief in a belief system above all others, without sway or tolerance of other beliefs. Atheism is skepticism, or the inacceptance of any belief system without concrete proof.

I believe the definition of Atheism above is inaccurate. Atheists do accept a belief system without any concrete proof. They believe there is no God. And when asked by us Christians that what is their concrete proof then? Their concrete proof is to disprove our beliefs. since when does disproving become a concrete proof?

until today, even science is just being used to disprove our beliefs and has not provided any concrete proof yet that there is no God. so why conclude immediately that there is no such thing as God?

Fundamentalism, on its very definition above, is not even related to religion. Even dictators can be considered fundamentalists, when running their own country. even scientists can be fundamentalists, when solving scientific problems, even our very own MMDA Chief BF can be considered a fundamentalist for his own unique way of solving the traffic mess. these examples I mentioned do not even touch religion.

why do you think that the definition of fundamentalism above, revolves or are confined only on religion alone? to blame religion as the cause for divisions, war and suffering bec. of the presence of fundamentalists is unfair.

The way I see it, and from the definition above, Fundamentalists have but only one way: their way. not God's way.

[Psalm136:2]

i've always thought that a substantial part of the Old Testament was written to provide divine justification for the defensive wars and conquest that the Jews/Israel (and their theological descendants, the Christians) waged against the neighboring countries/tribes that are the ancestors of modern-day Arab nations (the Philistines, Assyrians, Persians, etc)

God "ordered" kings to annihilate other nations to "punish them for ungodly practices"? i've never read the Quran, but i wonder what its account is of those wars....?

The Quran was written by Muhammad long after the New Testament was written (di nga lang na-distribute widely dahil wala pang publishing house noon ) I would say the Quran was not based on the OT but rather, the muslims believed in the prophets, leaders, kings, etc of the OT. The Quran has its own teachings and doctrines, some contrary to the OT, some adhering to it. Most of it is its defense of its principles and teachings, kaya nga tawag nila sa mga "unbelievers" ay infidels. Also it will never be based on the OT mainly because di ba nga galit na galit sila sa mga Jews?

The NT on the other hand also was not based on the OT, but rather it's the fulfillment of what was not achieved - salvation.

[Psalm136:2]

It's likely the same, both the Qu'ran and the Bible are based on the same Old Testament. It's just that Muslims continued the Jewish practices. And I think that they're also still waiting for the Messiah. I could be wrong.

I don't think that the Arabs are directly descended from those old Kingdoms, but it's an interesting question... hmmmmm.

The muslims did not and will never continue Jewish practices, mortal pong magka-away mga yan. Also, they're not waiting for a messiah, they believe that Muhammad is the ultimate prophet; after Jesus. Kaya nga tawag nila sa Quran ay the Last Testament. The Arabs are not direct descendants of the old kingdom (OT era). They're the product of different civilizations. The old kingdom people worshiped idols, the Arabs worship their god, they hate idols.

[Psalm136:2]

Me? I prefer to see it as this: There's both Good and Bad in the Bible, too many authors and too many editors. Since the Bible is supposed to be the living word, it is the duty of Christians of the faith to continually update the Bible and bring it up to modern times.

It's wrong for Christians to continually update the Bible and bring it up to modern times, it's an abominable offense (Revelation 22:18-19). It's the duty though of Christians to spread/preach the Word.

The Bible is a history of the faith, not just a guidebook. And as it grows and evolves, certain portions of it should become just that, history, while the Gospels should become our new guides.

The Bible doesn't grow, it doesn't evolve either. Di po pwedeng magbago ang Bible, otherwise God is a compromising god. Di po sya ganun.

If you say that some practices are from misinterpretation only, what about the Sabbath? Christ himself overturned that ruling, thus, we don't necessarily follow the Judaic Sabbath in modern Christianity. Yet the laws regarding the celebration of the Sabbath still exist in the Bible.

Christ did not overturned that ruling. During the OT times, the punishment for breaking the Sabbath day is death. Ganun kahigpit ang Diyos. During Christ's time, the penalty is still death, but not physical death, rather it's spiritual death. Meaning, if you break the Sabbath day, you'll not be killed, but you're commiting a sin.

And why does history stop at Roman times? Why not include more books in the Bible as Christianity itself grows? Why is it that the Bible is considered finished after some minor prophet or philosopher puts his last few letters in? Why did it not finish after Jesus' death? Why doesn't it continue until today?

Books cannot be added to the Bible because of the above curse. There may be people who did this, or are doing it, then it's their choice, they've been warned. Now why doesn't it continue until today? The job of the prophets was to bring Christ to every people, nation, tribe of the world, using the Bible. Today, it's the job of every Christian to continue what the prophets did, to evangelize, to bring Christ to every modern people using not just the Bible but every available means of communication.

It's not only atheists who should be questioning the Bible, but also believers. By putting your faith and the book to the test, you can only make it stronger. If by questioning, you lose faith, then you aren't very faithful in the first place.

This I agree, ganito rin kasi ang sabi ng Diyos, subukan Sya. And this should be the attitude of all people.

If by questioning and revising and making the Bible relevant to the Modern Christian, you make the Church stronger, so be it.

This I beg to disagree, because as I've said, God is not a compromising god, He's holy and righteous, though a lot of Christians today are compromising their faith and beliefs.

Again it's their choice.

[Kamui]

Its been long known in the U.S. that not everything in the Bible is true(they can thank science and scientists/historians for that). Which is why more and more Americans are turning atheist or agnostic(me included).

Its interesting to see how even in the Philippines which is a predominantly catholic country and a country where there is no separation between church and state also has debates such as this. I noticed that the church seems to hold incredible influence in the government here.

Anyway here are some nice articles regarding this whole issue that some of you might find interesting.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/bibleorigins.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/defofreligion.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/index.htm
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...o/galileo.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...eo/church.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...sreligion.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...flatearth.html
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/perils.html

In my opinion religion is fine and all, but too much of it can lead to fanaticism which is bad. And people should never force their beliefs on others. The Bible was written by man and hence cannot be an absolute basis of historical facts. To know the truth, people must look at multiple texts to get a more complete picture.

[empy]

It's likely the same, both the Qu'ran and the Bible are based on the same Old Testament. It's just that Muslims continued the Jewish practices. And I think that they're also still waiting for the Messiah. I could be wrong.

I don't think that the Arabs are directly descended from those old Kingdoms, but it's an interesting question... hmmmmm.

The Quran was written by Muhammad long after the New Testament was written (di nga lang na-distribute widely dahil wala pang publishing house noon ) I would say the Quran was not based on the OT but rather, the muslims believed in the prophets, leaders, kings, etc of the OT. The Quran has its own teachings and doctrines, some contrary to the OT, some adhering to it. Most of it is its defense of its principles and teachings, kaya nga tawag nila sa mga "unbelievers" ay infidels. Also it will never be based on the OT mainly because di ba nga galit na galit sila sa mga Jews?

The NT on the other hand also was not based on the OT, but rather it's the fulfillment of what was not achieved - salvation.

my point really was in the first paragraph you guys quoted. the OT appears, to my eyes, to be a justification for Israel to crush everyone around them whether for expansion or defensive or whatever purposes.

my other point is that the Quran probably says "we must defend ourselves against the children of Israel" or something similar. history (and religion) truly is written depending on which side you're on.

as for the antecedents of the Arabs, the Persians are clearly today's Iranians. the Assyrian Empire included today's Syria and Iraq. the closest modern equivalent to the Philistines are the Palestinians, although it's messy given that the Philistines were first assimilated into the Babylonian empire, then the Assyrian. so they're probably all over Egypt, Syria and other places.

[slamtaz]

Atheists do accept a belief system without any concrete proof. They believe there is no God. And when asked by us Christians that what is their concrete proof then? Their concrete proof is to disprove our beliefs. since when does disproving become a concrete proof?

Did I get this right? Some people don't believe because there's no proof nor evidence of god. In as much as proof or evidence works in reciprocity, shouldn't the same people rethink their belief since they likewise couldn't prove or give evidence that god does not exist? :confused:

talking about proof or evidence, there's a blind man since birth who haven't seen the moon. does it mean that he should not believe that there is a moon because he couldn't see it? even when he is bombarded with various unseen information or even brought to the moon, he will find it hard to believe because he still can't see it? or is the deaf entitled to believe that the dancer is moving crazily because the deaf couldn't hear the music?

This I agree, ganito rin kasi ang sabi ng Diyos, subukan Sya. And this should be the attitude of all people.
Again it's their choice.

This seems to be a fair statement to me..

The Bible was written by man and hence cannot be an absolute basis of historical facts. To know the truth, people must look at multiple texts to get a more complete picture.

Hmmm... pls help me on this one because i'm quite confused. but aren't these multiple texts you're talking about were likewise written by man hence, by you're reasoning, also can't be an absolute basis of historical facts? and to continue with that, are we suppose to end up not knowing the truth or not getting a more complete picture because it seems that all related materials were also written by man? :confused:

parang po bang lumabo lalo? nagtatanong lang po naman...

:peace:

[city]

OT:Here is a good sign of christian fundamentalism:

"Atheists cannot create a society or contribute positively to a society.
-They have no source of morality, and cannot have one without a God.
-Having a God, no matter what kind, is automatically good.
-All the evil in the world is done by atheists, and all the 'religious people' who commit evil are actually atheists."