Not everything in the Bible is true...

[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: