Some Comments From Members Of The INC

(Mostly written in Tagalog)

I have recently visited a forum. I think the forum was created by some Iglesia ni Cristo members…I don’t know.

Anyway, the forum was really about the never-ending feud between the ADD and the INC, but what caught my fancy was some discussion about atheism.

I have copied some of the responses of the INC members in the exchange between them and a fellow atheist. Hmmm, maybe it’s worth a look.

I really don’t know why most Christians say that if there is no God we can do all the evil things we want to do. Well, base on the Bible, evil came from God isn’t it (Isa. 45:7)? So without God then evil doesn’t even exist.

But seriously folks. What does belief in a God has to do with good deeds? The Golden Rule is sufficient to establish a good rapport with society, even if a certain god doesn’t exist. Now this is simple…Don’t do unto others what you don’t want to be done unto you. Do you want to be raped or do you want to be a victim of a crime? Then if not, do you think others want that to happen to them? Then don’t do it. PERIOD! You don’t need a god-belief to figure it out.

Besides,  rape, murder, plunder, stealing, illegal drug use are all offenses listed in the Penal Code of the Philippines and the Criminal Code of the Philippines. So who said that no one will punish us if we get caught?

Kung tutuusin,  Kira’s claim is a logical fallacy knows as a "straw-man." All that is happening here is that Kira is making a fantastic claim why a person is an atheist and then attacking that motivation. It really doesn’t say anything about atheism itself. Kira is not giving any reason why atheism is not a ogical position. Pareho po yan ng mga taong mahilig mag quote ng Psalms 14:1.

Speaking of Psalms 14:1 let us now look at taganood’s post.

Psa 14:1 (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.Hmmm…it seems taganood re-wrote the whole passages. According to the Bible,

Wala po doon yung salitang worthless, heartless and cruel (hindi kaya sa Lamsa translation ito? But Lamsa’s translation is just the Peshsita translation ng NT according to George Lamsa? Hmmmmm…Isep-Isep!).

To Mr. taganood, di mo ba nakikita ang pagiging illogical mo? If a fool is heartless, then how can he tell to his heart there is no God, since he doesn’t have a heart in the first place? Besides,  the passage is very clear in this, “The Fool said in his heart there is no God”. So where the “fool” did said it? Well, according to the scripture is in his heart. However,  does an atheist says it in heart there is no god? Nope. He use his mind, his rationality, not his emotions.

Now let’s go back to this Bible passage. This is an example of an ad hominem response. Kung titignan mong mabuti, ang verse na ito ay umaatake sa pag-katao ng nagsasalitang “There is no God” yet hindi ito gumagawa ng kahit anong paliwanag para patotohanan ang bintang na ito. Hindi kaya medyo kulang pa sa wisdom si Haring David?

Anyway, let see if tama ang bintang ni Haring David, ng Psalmster at ni Mr. Taganood.

Is a non-believer heartless or is God himself is the heartless one?

According to the dictionary, heartless means lacking in feeling or pity or warmth. Kung babasahin mo ang Bible, maraming inutos na pag-patay ang diyos ng mga Judeo- kung ikukumpara sa mga ibang diyos ng ibang kultura. Aba! Kahit bata at mga alagang hayop ay pinapapatay nya. Cruel? According to the dictionary cruel means, “able or disposed to inflict pain or suffering."

So let see how cruel is the God of the Bible.

• "there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the 250 men that offered incense" (Num. 16:35). "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died" (Num. 21:6). "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...." (Deut. 32:39). "The Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070 men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter" (1 Sam. 6:19). "The Lord kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up" (1 Sam. 2:6). "the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them...." (1 Sam. 5:6). "it came to pass about 10 days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died" (1 Sam. 25:38). "Who smote great nations and slew mighty kings...." (Psalms 135:10). "For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many" (Isaiah 66:16). "I will dash them one against another, even the father and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them" (Jer. 13:14). "I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword...." (Amos 4:10). "For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29), "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3), "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the 10th generation shall he not enter...." (Deut. 23:2). , "The Lord said to Joshua,...You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots." (Joshua 11:6), Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

So, again sino ang cruel?

Now,  the accusation is that an atheist will never do right.

If you never did something right, you feel sorry to what you have done diba, kasi nga mali…not right. So when you did something wrong which is not right, you repent diba? Then why did God repent?

• "...that I the Lord God may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them and "...for I repent of the evil that I have done to you" (Jer. 42:10).

• It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen. 6:6).

• "...the Lord repented of the evil which he though to do unto his people" (Ex. 32:14).

Beside, just think about this for a while. Here God wanted to get rid of evil in the world. So he devised a plan that well…according to him, is sufficient to get rid of evil in this world. So he flooded the Earth to kill all living flesh that live in or on the land and spared a perfectly righteous man named Noah and his family. After a few thousand years evil again returned so it is necessary to sacrifices his only begotten son as payment to all sins. And yet after his son’s second (?) coming he will now end the evil of this world. What? So what happened on the first attempt? Nagkamali ba sya?

Worthless? If I worship a malevolent fiend, sino kaya sa aming dalawa ang worthless?

Besides, if god is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and a benevolent being then evil shouldn't exist, yet evil still exists! So anong worth ng pagiging god nya in the first place?

Sabi nga ni Michael Donald Goulder in a public dialogue with the English theologian John Hick, “The God of the past no longer had any real work to do. The tasks assigned to this God by traditional wisdom have been slowly but surely stripped from the divine side. This God no longer fights wars and defeats enemies. This God no longer chooses a special people and works through them. This God no longer sends the storms, heals the sick, spares the dying, or even judge the sinners. This God no longer rewards goodness and punish evil. Yet this virtually unemployed deity is still the primary object and substance of the Christian Church’s faith.”

Hmmmm…so again who is worthless? The only worth I see here is that a lot of religious con-artists earn millions of pesos, thanks for the tax-free ride and the gullible Filipinos.

Robert Ingersoll is right when he summarized what this God you want me to believe is really all about…"A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, a hypocrite, a tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, infamous and hideous--such is the God of the Pentateuch."

Now here’s something from --ATHRUN ZALA, JUSTICE GUNDAM PILOT

TOTOO PO YUN, AND FOR US HINDI PO NALIKHA ANG HANGIN SA PAMAMAGITAN NG TSAMBA LAMANG. SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE CREATED IT, GIVEN ITS COMPLEXITIES WITH REGARDS TO ITS OVERALL COMPOSITION - MAY OXYGEN, CARBON DIOXIDE, NITROGEN, ETC.

KUNG BAGA SA ISANG SASAKYAN, COMPUTER, CELLPHONES ATBP., IMPOSIBLE RIN PO NA ANG MGA ITO'Y NALIKHA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG TSAMBA LANG.

If we look closely on this argument, it seems he’s saying that all complex objects have a “creator” – Hmmmm, now he gives us some example of elements and compounds that compose air.

Maybe he has forgotten or haven’t encountered the scientific law that says, “energy and matter was not created nor cannot be destroyed” huh?

Given this kind of logic, if a believer says all complex existing objects needs a creator, we can formulate the following preposition:

A – All complex existing objects (when we say object we also include all complex beings) have a “creator”.

B - God is a complex existing object

Therefore, God has a creator.

If you say that God has no creator, they why God? We can also say that energy has no creator, nor matter. We can also say that the Universe has no beginning nor end diba? Sky’s the limit my friends.

If you say that God is a necessary being as proposed by Thomas Aquinas (sorry hindi sya member ng INC) then we just entered a merry-go-round of circular reasoning. Since it already assumed the conclusion in one of its premises. Mr. Aquinas never really gave us a good reason why God is supposed to be a "necessary being?"

Baka kayo may mas magandang dahilan?

Before you say that God created these entire complex existing beings, you have to produce God first or in layman’s term. Kung may sapatos, may sapatero, pero kung nandito and sansinukod, nasaan ang dyos mo?

Now from Jomar,

malinaw naman di ba??? naniniwala kang may creator pero hindi yun Dios para sayo. kaya tama pa rin na tawagin kang isang atheist o isang tao na di naniniwala sa Dios sapagkat iyon ang tunay nyan kahulugan. may mali ba sa analysis ko? o isa ka rin sa mga inutil na sinasabi ng isip mo?

An atheist is a person that is not a theist. That is the simplest definition of an atheist. Now suppose an atheist believe in a creator, does that mean he believed in a god? Hold your horses there; a god doesn’t necessary mean a creator nor does it mean the source of creation.

Suppose something did create everything, yet this something is not worthy of worship, Does that mean that the creator is a god? Now papaano if the beginning or the cause is really very insignificant compared to the effect (like the snowball effect), will this insignificant cause worthy of my unfettered devotion?

Suppose everything was created by The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Giant Spaghetti Monster or Russel’s Teapot. Are they gods?

For example, the pantheist thinks that Nature and God are the same. So kung sila ang tatanungin, that makes Nature the Creator. But will you guys accept that a creator is a formless, non-sentient, entity? Does that by definition is a creator-god?

So please before you tread waters with an atheist, be careful on what you're gonna say because you may not like his answers.

Nagpapaalala lang po.