Thursday, December 29, 2011

All About Rizal, evolution and Einstein...Facebook style.


Let’s talk about Jose Rizal’s idea of God and religion. This Fb surely doesn’t have the slightest idea about Rizal and his ideas towards religion and God. That is why he taught that he can use Rizal to…well aggravate a Filipino atheist.

Let me start with paragraph 1. According to his post Rizal (base on the quote) thinks that religion is a very sacred thing. That’s correct, Rizal is a deeply religious person, but there’s more. 

Rizal believes in what he called “Natural Religion.” In his notes to Morga, he claimed that primitive religion of the Filipinos was more in conformity with Christ’s religion that the religion brought by the Spanish friars. Well we know that the Spaniards brought Christianity to the Philippine shores in 1565. Now, base n most of his correspondence with Fr. Pablo Pastell on the time he was in Dapitan, Rizal seems to imply that he defines religion base on the romantic claim of deism natural religion. As Rizal wrote,on his third letter to Fr. Pastell, “Through reasoning and by necessity, rather than through faith, do I firmly believe in the existence of a creative Being. Who is he? I do not know. What human sounds, what accents are we to use in pronouncing the name of this Being whose works overwhelm the imagination? Can anyone give him an adequate name, when a small creature on this earth with power so fleeting carries two or three names, three or four surnames, and many more titles and designations? We call him Dios but this only comes from the Latin dues and ultimately from the Greek Zeus. What kind of being is he? I would attribute to him, to an infinite degree, all the beautiful and holy qualities my mind can think of, but the fear of my ignorance constrains me. Someone has said that everyone conjures up his own God in his own image and likeness. And if my memory serves me right, it was Anacreon who said that if a bull could form an image of God, it would imagine with horns and mooing in a superlative degree. Even so I venture to think of him as infinitely wise, mighty, good (my idea of the infinite is imperfect and confused), when I behold the wonders of his works, the order that reigns over the universe, the magnificence and expanse of creation, and the goodness that shines in all.”

And what about Rizal’s idea of God? Rizal’s belief in a Deity was based on reasonable reflection of nature as well as from conscience and not on faith or divine revelation. On the same letter, Rizal expressed his disbelief on the teachings of ancient sacred books. He writes:
“The various religions claim to have God’s will condensed and written in books and dogmas; but apart from the many contradictions, conflicting interpretations of words, and many obscure and untenable points I find in them, my conscience, my reason cannot admit that he who like a wise father had provided his creatures with everything necessary for this life, proceeded to bury what was necessary for eternal life in the obscurities of a language unknown to the rest of the world and hide it behind metaphors and deeds that go against the very laws of nature. Is it possible that he who makes the sun rise for all and the air to blow everywhere to give life, he who has endowed everyone with intelligence and reason for life here on earth, has also hidden from us what is most necessary for our eternal life? What shall we say of a father who heaps candies and toys on his children, but gives food only to one of them, educates and rears him alone? And what if it so happens that this chosen one refuses to eat while the others die looking for food?”

2. This reflects the Fb guy’s ignorance in evolution. Humans didn’t descend from monkeys and humans will not evolved into gorillas. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

3. Albert Einstein is a scientific pantheists.
When Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue ask Dr. Einstein if he believes in God, he answered, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, in a letter March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”


Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako. (Part 2)

Exodus 20:8 vs. Romans 14:5

Isa raw sa nakita nyang maling kontradiksyon na nakasulat sa website ng American Atheists ay ang patungkol sa Exodo 20:8 at sa Taga Roma 14:5. Ang sabi nya...


Teka...ano nga ba ang kontradiksyon dito?

(Exodus 20:8-9) - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
(Romans 14:5) - "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."



Ah, yun naman pala. Kung kailanga pa bang ipag-diwang ang Sabbath ayon sa iniutos ng Panginoon o ang tao na ang bahala kung anong Sabbath ang gusto nya. 



Ayon sa may akda bakit tila hindi ipinaliwanag ng American Atheists kung paano naging magkakontra ang naturang mga sitas o talata. 


Pinuntahan ko ang site na tinutukoy nya at napansin ko nga na walang paliwanag...dahil ito po ay nasa porma ng isang listahan o lists. Lahat ng sinasabing contradictions dito eh pawang nakalista lang po. Hindi po naman kasi ito kagaya ng site ni Farrell Till kung saan naka detalye ang lahat ng mga rason nya.

Ikalawang tanong, ano ba ang pakahulugan ng nasabing komentarista sa nais iparating ng talata sa Taga Roma 14:5? Ito ba ay totoong patungkol sa araw ng pamamahinga o Sabbath?

So, ang Romans 14:5 po ba ay walang kahulugan ukol sa Sabbath?

Well, ayon kay Adam Clarke (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible) eh mayroon. Bagamat hindi binangit ni Pablo ang salitang "Sabbath" sa bersikulo na ito, dapat nating unawain na ang pinag-uusapan dito ay ang mga tradisyon at batas ng Hudyo kumpara sa Hintil. Ganito rin ang komentaryo ni Albert Barnes at ni B.W.Johnson. Sabi nya, hindi raw kasi maunawaan ng mga Hudyo na ang Lumang Tipan ay napalitan na ng Bagong Tipan kaya't ang mga utos tungkol sa tradisyon ng Lumang Tipan ay natapos na rin. Sya nga pala...ito ay mga kumentaryo ng mga Christian Bible commentators at hindi mga Katoliko. Tandaan natin na ang American Atheists ay kumakalaban ng mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalist Christians.

Kaya dahil sa mga komentaryong ito, nakikita natin na para sa mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalists Christians, may koneksyon and Romans 14:5 sa Sabbath.

At ang huling katanungan sa pag-aanalisa natin ay kung bakit hindi isinama ng komentarista ang talatang kasunod nito na nagsasabi ng ganito:

Ang nangingilin sa isang araw ay nangingilin alang-alang sa Panginoon. Ang kumakain ng kahit ano ay kumakain niyon alang-alang sa Panginoon, sapagkat nagpapasalamat siya sa Diyos. Yaon namang hindi kumakain ng lahat ng uri ng pagkain ay gumagawa ng gayon alang-alang sa Panginoon at nagpapasalamat din siya sa Diyos.

Nabura ba ng talatang kasunod ang problema?

Hindi po. Tandaan natin na ang naging usapan dito eh tradisyon (which kasama na ang custom on festivities, food laws at iba pa.) Ang tanong lang naman dito eh simple lang: Ang diyos ba ang nagtalaga ng araw o ikaw ang pipili ng araw na gusto mo?



(Sa kanyang naging tugon sa akin gagamitin ko na rin ang post na ito para masagot ang mga ito...



Unang una na ay ang patuloy niyang pagtukoy sa Exodo 16:29. Dapat po nating isipin na ang araw na binabanggit sa Exodo 16:29 ay ang araw ng pamamahinga para sa mga Hudyo na hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na di kinikilala si HesuKristo at ang mga aral ng ating Panginoon.


Hindi ba kinikilala ni Hesus ang Sabbath dahil sa salita nya sa  Marcos 2:27-28? 



“At sinabi niya sa kanila, Ginawa ang sabbath ng dahil sa tao, at di ang tao ng dahil sa sabbath: Kaya’t ang Anak ng tao ay panginoon din naman ng sabbath.”

Ito ang madalas na ginagamit ng mga Katoliko o iba pang mga mananamba ng Linggo para ma-justify ang kanilang pagsamba sa ibang araw. Pero alam mo...walang problema sa akin ito. Tandaan natin na ang kontradiksyon eh kung ang diyos ba ang nagbigay ng anong panahon ang dapat gawing Sabbath vs. kung pwede bang tao na lang ang mamili ng araw na gusto nya. Just telling me that Jesus changed the Law doesn't justify the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient God's Law is replaceable. Teka...but to tell that Jesus never respected the Sabbath Law is a lie isn't it? (See: Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28) 

Pero sasabihin na, "Malinaw mga kapatid na si Kristo bilang Panginoon ng Sabbath ay may karapatang baguhin ang Sabbath ayon sa kung ano ang makakabuti para sa tao. Ito ba ay mauituturing na isang kontradiksyon ayon sa Exodo 16:29? Hindi po mga kapatid sapagkat bilang Panginoon at Diyos ng Sabbath, may karapatan at kakayahan ang Panginoong HesuKristo na baguhin ito ayon sa kung ano ang makabubuti para sa tao na siyang dahilan sa pagkakatatag nito."




Para sa may akda binago na ni Hesus ang batas ng Sabbath kaya wala ng kontradiksyon, tama ba? Kung iintindihing mabuti ang nakasulat sa Marcos 2:27-28, hindi dyan sinasabi na binago ni Hesus and batas ukol sa Sabbath. Sinasabi lang dyan na mas importante ang tao kaysa sa Sabbath (Which still contradicts Exodus 16:29 that demands people to worship in the 7th day.)


Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako.

Habang ako'y naghahanap ng mga kung anu-ano dito sa Internet, ako'y nadaan sa isang blog na sinulat ng sa tingin ko'y isang Catholic defender na may titulong "ATHEISTA KA BA?" Ito ay naisulat noong Abril 8, 2008 ng isang tao na naitatago sa pangalang fperito at mayroon itong 5 bahagi. Hmmmm...mukhang nasagot ko na ito, ngunit nagtataka lang ako kung bakit mukhang nawawala ata yung ginawa kong kasagutan para dito sa aking blog?

Well, due to insisted public demand, aking ulit ibinabalik ang naging mga kasagutan ko sa kanya at sa kanyang sinulat tungkol sa atheism at sa mga ateista.

According sa blog na ito, ang layunin daw ng mga ateista na gibain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo base sa isang artikulo sa Internet. Tignan natin ang kanyang sinabi:


Medyo naguguluhan ako dito. Ang artikulo na galing sa American Atheists ay kumakalaban sa mga paniniwala ng mga Evangelical Christians o yung tinatawag nating Fundamentalist Christianity. Malaki kasi ang pag-kakaiba ng paniniwala ng mga Romano Katoliko ikumpara sa mga Fundamentalist Christians. Umpisahan natin sa "The Bible has no errors."

Sa mga Katoliko, naniniwala sila na ang Biblia ay walang mali...KUNG ang babasihan natin eh yung mga tinatawag na original manuscript (na hindi na matatagpuan) at take note...ang Biblia ay walang mali kung ang pag-uusapan ay tungkol sa kaligtasan. Nakasaad sa dokumentong "Dei Verbum" Article 11. Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture..

Malinaw ba?

Sa naabing dokumento, hindi sinasabi na walang kamalian o kontradiksyon ang Biblia. Sinasabi dito na walang mali ang Biblia KUNG ITO AY PATUNGKOL SA KALIGTASAN.

Eh papaano naman sa mga tinatawag na Fundamentalist Christians?

Ayon sa Lausanne Covenant of 1974, "We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." (Section 2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE). Ibig sabihin, sa mga Fundamentalist Christian ang Biblia ay walang kamalian sa lahat ng sinasabi nito, hindi lamang patungkol sa kaligtasan.

Kaya bumalik tayo sa patukoy ng may akda. Motibo ba ng mg ateista na sirain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo? Kung ang tinutukoy na pundasyon eh ang katotohanan na may kontradiksyon o kamalian ang Biblia suguro'y kailangan munang linawin ng may akda kung ano ang kanyang tinutukoy na doktrina ukol sa inspirasyon ng kanyang Banal na Aklat.

Sa susunod na bahagi ating pag-usapan ang kanyang mga sinasabing "kinokontrang" kontradiksyon...

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

The Awful Truth!

Do you know that Jack T. Chick, publisher of those nifty little Christian comics is a religious bigot?

Little is known about Jack Chick, a reclusive fundamentalist Christian preacher operating out of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and what little can be gleamed about him is only available on the website of his publishing house, Chick Publications. What is known is the proliferation of tiny, hand drawn comic books, called “Chick Tracts” which he uses to evangelize. The subjects of the tracts range from relatively typical to downright bizarre, but are best known for a particularly vicious brand of anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-evolution.

Chick’s tracts portray the Catholic Church as sinister and conspiracy bent, especially in regards to Protestant Fundamentalists and himself in particular. He portrays Church belief and practice as being born out of ancient paganism, and depicts demons as infesting every aspect of Catholic life, as though Catholics secretly worship Satan. He frequently refers to the Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, “Antichrist”, insinuates the Church created Nazism as a means to exterminate Jews, and portrays Catholics as foul-mouthed, angry, abusive and prone to drunkenness.

For more of the Bigot's List, click here.