Homophobia

I really don't understand anything about homophobia until I become involved with the Filipino Freethinkers - well, that was when I attended my very first Pride March. Before that I hate gays.

Natural Morality or "School Morality?"

Ano ba naman ito? Our morality came from our school that was influenced by our religion? Para naman sinabi na bago nakapasok ng Grade 1 eh wala tayong moralidad? Have the OP forgotten that our first school was our home and our first teacher was our parents. Have he forgotten those young Jose Rizal stiories which tells us how Dona Alonzon teached young Pepe about morality? Surely that's where we get our morals before our schools.

Existence

When we talk about the word "existence" hay nako, napakaraming meaning for a single word. It really depends on what school of philosophy you belong to give a good meaning for this word. OK let's start with the very basic - the dictionary meaning. According to Mr. Webster

ex·is·tence \ig-'zis-tən(t)s\  n (14c)

1 a obs: reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c  (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular being ‹all the fair ~s of heaven —John Keats› d : sentient or living being : life

2 a : the state or fact of having being esp. independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence ‹the ~ of other worlds› b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect

3 : actual or present occurrence 

Life is so unfair.

The time that I saw this post from a certain Facebook group, I remember a quote from the late Carl Sagan - "Better the hard truth than comforting lies." 

Most theists believe that without their heaven, hell and their Bug-Eyed Deity, life is unruly and unfair. Noticed this post - since atheists doesn't believe in the existence of their god -  immorality, (homosexuality?), crime and (bestiality?) will be on the rampage. Wait a minute. There are more theists than atheists living today, right? Majority believed in a god. Majority believed in heaven and hell. Majority believed in a God given universal law?  So why are there still sin, crime, immorality? Why is it that Catholic priests and Christian pastors become child molesters themselves? Some Muslims still rape goats and sheeps - and don't tell me they're atheists.

Creationists - Keyboard Warriors!

I am amaze of how some people have the energy and patience to debate or discuss evolution to demented religious fanatics - these dorks are not interested or doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the topic anyway. Pero ayun, nagta-tyagang makipagusap pa rin at ituro ang ebulusyon.

Absolute Morality?

When it comes to morality, Christians says it is objective and absolute.

When we talk about an objective morality, it means as Ravi Zacarias have said, "that there must be a Law Giver  - and this Law Giver is God." Too simple?

Let's put it this way...
According to Norman Geisler an absolute moral obligation is:
* an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.
* an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.
* a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places.

An absolute moral duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics p 118)

This mean morality is NOT RELATIVE.

So far, so good.

Now, let's go to one of the sources of Christian ethics - The Ten Commandments. In the 10 Commandments, there are two particular commandments I would like to point at: Thou shall not lie and Thou shall not steal. You break one of the commandments, you sin to God. And, since MORALITY IN NOT RELATIVE according to Christian belief, then whatever reason, the commandment is binding. There are no gray area, no excuses. There is no room for situational ethics.

According to one Filipino tele-evangelist, You break one, just one of the commandments - you sin. Then quoting Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"

Now...

Let's talk about lying first.

So, you shall not lie - the commandment is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - no gray areas, NOT RELATIVE MORALS yet...

We read the story of the Hebrew midwives. If you are not familiar with it, you can get your Bible and read Exodus 1:15-21. It was very obvious that the Hebrew midwives lied to the Pharaoh. And they were rewarded for lying? I thought morality is NOT RELATIVE? Why will this god bless these two liars? Because they lie to save Moses?
But I thought morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - No "if" or "but?"

There is also the story of Rahad lying to those who were searching for Joshua’s spies (Joshua 2:3-4). And was even justified (James 2:25)?

Wait? I thought God's morality is  universal, objective, eternal and absolute? From the looks of it, lying becomes justifiable if done in the service of God. That makes lying relative (the evilness of lying depends on where, when or to whom you used it.)

And how about stealing?

According to Exodus 12:35-36, The Israelite, following Moses and God’s instructions, steal jewels and clothing from the Egyptians. Same with Ezekiel 39:10 and Nahum 2:9 So if God commanded you to steal, stealing becomes OK? That's make stealing relative.

Here's another good example:

Jesus ordered his goons to take a colt and an ass. That is in Matthew 21:1-4 ( Now how did Jesus able to ride both colt and ass in the same time is really a miracle but…) the issue here is why Jesus didn't tell his disciples to ask the permission of the owner of the ass and the colt? Getting something without permission is tantamount to stealing.

God attorneys in this group keep on posting their belief that MORALITY IS NOT RELATIVE yet their own bible is dripping with relativism. It seems that when it comes to biblical morality, good and bad depends on what the LORD wants. If god wants you to kill his enemies, then killing becomes good. If you will lie so god can do away with it, then lying becomes morally upright. If god wants you to plunder his enemies, then stealing becomes justifiable.

It seems contrary to god's self-proclaimed attorneys belief, in biblical morality, morality is based on what god commands you to do and ethics has no meaning.

About Satan.

Can someone explain this. I just wanted to know...

According to Genesis 3:14

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

OK, most Christians believed that the serpent in the Genesis narrative is Satan (also see Rev. 20:2). 

Now according to the story, God cursed Satan above all cattle, and above every beast of the field - wait? Cattle? Every beast of the field? I thought Satan was an angel so why the issue with cattle and field animals?

Upon thy belly shalt thou go - So god cursed Satan to crawl on his belly, yet we find Satan on Job 1:6-8 "going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." I though he shall be crawling on his belly forever?

We also find Satan in Matthew 4:1-10 tempting Jesus and bringing him "up into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple," and "into an exceedingly high mountain" He did all that while crawling in his belly? 

Going back to Job, here's someone that was already cursed by god yet all of a sudden this Satan can just enter god's domain and talk to god as if nothing happened? And take note, he (Satan) even came along together with the sons of God. 

Weird.

Additional question - How can angels sin?

According to 2Peter 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 

Now, angels are heavenly beings - living in heaven (a perfect place according to Christian belief - the abode of God, the invisible realm of holiness and happiness). According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, angels are the holiest of created beings.  Intelligent holy beings who are instruments of the Divine will. They also interprets god's will. God called them as "holy ones" (Job 15:15 ) even though he do not trust them." As Job 15:15 says, "Behold, he puts no trust in his holy ones; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight." Now, holy means morally and spiritually excellent.  Yet they sinned? And god cannot even trust these "holy ones?" 

Why is this "perfect" god (whose work is always perfect according to Deuteronomy 32:4 ) always flunk when trying to create morally and spiritually excellent beings? Free-will? So angels have free-will? Now, if angels came first before humans, and this god already know that "free-will" can corrupt his creations, why apply free-will to humans (his favorite pets)? He already seen how free-will corrupted his "perfectly created, intelligent holy beings" to the point that he can't even trust them diba?

Tanga lang ba talaga?