🕯️ Traditions WHY DID GOD ASK THE ISRAELITES TO KILL THE CANAANITES.

[stellarium]

Justification lang un ng mga Israelita para makapag-wage ng war sa original inhabitants ng Palestine. Gawain yan ng mga colonizers noon at ngaun. Ginawa rin yan ng mga Europeans para makamkam ang America sa mga indigenous peoples. Ginawa rin yan ng mga Arab Muslims para makamkam ang Arabia at North Africa sa mga pagano. At yan din ang ginagawa ng mga European Jews sa kasalukuyan. Kinakamkam ang Palestine mula sa Palestinian Arabs.

Hindi totoo ang diyos, religion, sin, at racism. Excuses lang ang mga ito na ginagamit ng mga colonizers para magnakaw ng lupain at possessions mula sa iba. Religion ang pinakaeffective tool sa colonization.

at saan mo naman napulot un idea mo na ang mga british ay sinakop ang american continent by using religion?

 

[homer_simpson]

ipag patuloy mo lang yang kamangmangan mo homer at masasarap ka saken kung sa ibang theist dito ay umuubra yan pang imbornal na pananalita mo ibahin mo ko

Umuusok na ilong nito. Hinga pa. Hehehe

 

[stellarium]

Umuusok na ilong nito. Hinga pa. Hehehe

ako uusok ilong sayo hahaha ni hindi ka umabot sa nerve ko
actually hindi ka nakaka asar nakakatuwang paglaruan at basahin ang kamangmangan mo

 

[homer_simpson]

ako uusok ilong sayo hahaha ni hindi ka umabot sa nerve ko
actually hindi ka nakaka asar nakakatuwang paglaruan at basahin ang kamangmangan mo

Hey moral pig. Hindi mo na nasagot yung example ko sa train. Kase hindi mo kaya. Nasaan na yung pinagmamalaki mong kamoralan, o ka-abnormalan?

 

[stellarium]

Hey moral pig. Hindi mo na nasagot yung example ko sa train. Kase hindi mo kaya. Nasaan na yung pinagmamalaki mong kamoralan, o ka-abnormalan?

ahahaha moral scumbag ilang beses ko sinagot yan mangmang kang talaga hindi ka nagbabasa sino hindi sumasagot?

yan kab0b0han mo wag mo gingawang bisyo


dalawang beses ko pa ni repost eto 3 times for the convenience of your stups head
yan kakapirasong moral argument mo pinagmamalaki mo hahaha

REPOST



now ngayon sayo ko itatanong ano gagawin mo itutulak mo o hindi?

kung hindi mo itutulak? anong moral standard ang pinag basehan mo
ilabas mo dito ang moral ground mo


sinagot kita ikaw ang hindi marunong sumagot ng simpleng tanong
matuto ka mag back read
ngayon ikaw naman ang sumagot

repost

mas kups ka

puro ka putak sa morality hindi mo naman alam pinagsasabi mo hahaha

noon ay nag prepreno ko sayo dahil bago lang ako dito but silent no more

of course hindi ko gagawin yan example mo na itutulad ko yung tao

theist know the conception of good and evil we moral standard to ground


ikaw by your morality ay pwedi mo itulak ang tao sinsabi mo and there is nothing wrong with it

now ngayon sayo ko itatanong ano gagawin mo itutulak mo o hindi?

kung hindi mo itutulak? anong moral standard ang pinag basehan mo
ilabas mo dito ang moral ground mo ng good and evil

 

[fabbriche]

at saan mo naman napulot un idea mo na ang mga british ay sinakop ang american continent by using religion?

Spain ang unang sumakap sa Americas at kasama sa three G's ng exploration nila ang God. "God, Glory and Gold" ang motive ng western imperialism.

Sa lahat ng mga lupaing sinakop nila kundi genocide, cultural erasure ang ginawa nila. 150 million ang indigenous population ng Americas bago ang Western imperialism. Sa loob lang ng 100 years naging predominantly European na ang continent at naging second-class citizens na lang at minorities ang mga natives.

Sa mga bansang hindi tagumpay na napatay ng mga Europeans ang mga natives, cultural erasure naman ang ginawa nila. Gaya sa Africa. Animist ang mga Africans nung pre-colonial era. Ngaun puro mga Kristyano na sila. Ganun din sa Pilipinas. Animist, Hindu, Buddhist at Muslim ang mga Pilipino bago dumating ang mga Kastila na may sariling alphabet na di katulad ng Roman alphabet. Binura lahat un ng mga Kastila. Hindi nga lang nila tinuruan ng Spanish ang mga Pilipino dahil masyado raw kayong mababang uri ng mga hayop para makaintindi ng Spanish.

Kaya ang kultura mo ngaun ay pinuwersa lang sau ng mga Europeans.

 

[stellarium]

Spain ang unang sumakap sa Americas at kasama sa three G's ng exploration nila ang God. "God, Glory and Gold" ang motive ng western imperialism.

Sa lahat ng mga lupaing sinakop nila kundi genocide, cultural erasure ang ginawa nila. 150 million ang indigenous population ng Americas bago ang Western imperialism. Sa loob lang ng 100 years naging predominantly European na ang continent at naging second-class citizens na lang at minorities ang mga natives.

Sa mga bansang hindi tagumpay na napatay ng mga Europeans ang mga natives, cultural erasure naman ang ginawa nila. Gaya sa Africa. Animist ang mga Africans nung pre-colonial era. Ngaun puro mga Kristyano na sila. Ganun din sa Pilipinas. Animist, Hindu, Buddhist at Muslim ang mga Pilipino bago dumating ang mga Kastila na may sariling alphabet na di katulad ng Roman alphabet. Binura lahat un ng mga Kastila. Hindi nga lang nila tinuruan ng Spanish ang mga Pilipino dahil masyado raw kayong mababang uri ng mga hayop para makaintindi ng Spanish.

Kaya ang kultura mo ngaun ay pinuwersa lang sau ng mga Europeans.

mga briton ang unang nakapag tatag ng sentralisadong kolonya sa lupain ni uncle joe mga briton ang unang nandayuhan dyan, ang mga american white ay ang mga briton ang ancestors nila


now on columbus, ang pinaka mission ng kanilang conquest ay hilaw na sangkap at spicies and second lang ang religion

bakit mo sisihin ang Diyos sa pananakop nila, people abused God through religion i will not denied it dahil ako mismo ay anti sectarianism at anti-religion - the organized religion
religion is the greatest blasphemy of humanity

so people abused god through religion doesnt mean believing in God is false

 

[homer_simpson]

ahahaha moral scumbag ilang beses ko sinagot yan mangmang kang talaga hindi ka nagbabasa sino hindi sumasagot?

yan kab0b0han mo wag mo gingawang bisyo


dalawang beses ko pa ni repost eto 3 times for the convenience of your stups head
yan kakapirasong moral argument mo pinagmamalaki mo hahaha

REPOST



now ngayon sayo ko itatanong ano gagawin mo itutulak mo o hindi?

kung hindi mo itutulak? anong moral standard ang pinag basehan mo
ilabas mo dito ang moral ground mo


sinagot kita ikaw ang hindi marunong sumagot ng simpleng tanong
matuto ka mag back read
ngayon ikaw naman ang sumagot

repost

mas kups ka

puro ka putak sa morality hindi mo naman alam pinagsasabi mo hahaha

noon ay nag prepreno ko sayo dahil bago lang ako dito but silent no more

of course hindi ko gagawin yan example mo na itutulad ko yung tao

theist know the conception of good and evil we moral standard to ground


ikaw by your morality ay pwedi mo itulak ang tao sinsabi mo and there is nothing wrong with it

now ngayon sayo ko itatanong ano gagawin mo itutulak mo o hindi?

kung hindi mo itutulak? anong moral standard ang pinag basehan mo
ilabas mo dito ang moral ground mo ng good and evil

Boplaks! HIndi mo sinagot. Ang sagot sino/ano ang pipiliin mo iligtas? Ang anak mo o ang mga pasahero ng train? Hindo mo masagot ano? Kasi alam mo na either way, may repercussion which might not be moral depending on whose point of view. Hence, moral standard is relative. B0b0!

 

[homer_simpson]

mga briton ang unang nakapag tatag ng sentralisadong kolonya sa lupain ni uncle joe mga briton ang unang nandayuhan dyan, ang mga american white ay ang mga briton ang ancestors nila


now on columbus, ang pinaka mission ng kanilang conquest ay hilaw na sangkap at spicies and second lang ang religion

bakit mo sisihin ang Diyos sa pananakop nila, people abused God through religion i will not denied it dahil ako mismo ay anti sectarianism at anti-religion - the organized religion
religion is the greatest blasphemy of humanity

so people abused god through religion doesnt mean believing in God is false

Eto na naman si pseudo-historian kuno, master googler.

 

[stellarium]

Boplaks! HIndi mo sinagot. Ang sagot sino/ano ang pipiliin mo iligtas? Ang anak mo o ang mga pasahero ng train? Hindo mo masagot ano? Kasi alam mo na either way, may repercussion which might not be moral depending on whose point of view. Hence, moral standard is relative. B0b0!

Kung operator ka ng rail at may 2 rails pa pwedeng daanan yung incoming train. Nataon na yung anak mo naglalaro sa gitna ng 1 train. Yung isang rail ay sira at anuman train na dumaan duon ay siguradong disaster. Ano ang pipillin mo? Which action is moral? Which is right and which is wrong?

Get off you effing high horse!



obob talaga sinagot kita using trolley/footbridge dilemma dhil dyan mo binase ang tanong mo, it even save you for your moral stupidity


at sinagot kita straight forward

Theist Know the conception of good and evil

you do want to drown your self in the ocean that u cant save your self sige pagbibigyan kita


we theists have a moral standard to ground -- the scriptures, and faith in God


the sciptures teach us moral obligations - to save many lives

we have a moral standard and example in the context of the bible,

where God sacrificed his son to save many


i have moral obligation to save the 1 life of my son
but id rather choose to save many lives as my
moral obligations and my moral standard


magiging masaya ba ang anak ko kung malaman nya siya ay sinagot ko kapalit ng buhay ng marami?no he will bear a guilt all of his life

like jesus said: ama ko nawa ang sarong ito ay lumampas sa akin ngunit makakabuti ang masunod ay kalooban mo at hindi ang kalooban ko

yan ang ground or saligan ng moral standard namin
in that situation we theists will not face repercussion which might not be moral na gaya ng kaboboban pinagsasabi mo
dahil may moral standard kami


ngayon ikaw naman sumag0t b0bo sa eksaktong tanong mo


sino ang pipiliin mo? anak mo o buhay ng nakakarami?



kahit anong choices mo u will face the two edged evil
evil of being morally selfish by saving your son
evil of being not loving father by letting your son died


whatever you choose between the two saan mo ngayon ibabatay ang moral standard ng pagpili mo?

 

[jayendecastro]

jayendecastro ang binabanggit mo ay siege of jericho - the city of jericho

sa bibliya ay madami occupants ang canaan including hitites and amortrites
so we cannot determine the exact original occupant of jericho


besides the siege of jericho according to some archeologist did not really happened
according to archeologist William Dever

makikita natin nyan sa verse ng bible


1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. -Deutoronomy 7 1-6

at iyan ang pinaka declaration sa bible on how to conquer the land of canaan and its corrupted inhabitants


so lets analize the verses in question


the main purpose of the conquest is: to

drive out the corrupted inhabitants - not to kill them all including children
to break down their idols where they sacrificed their childrens

God said do not make treaty on them - if the purpose of conquest is to kill them all including children then why God reminded the israelite to not make treaty on them? can you make treaty to a destroyed tribe? certainly not because that is not the main purpose of their conquest

God said do not intermary with them - if the purpose of conquest is to kill them all including children then why God reminded the israelite on not intermarry with them? can you they intermarry on a destyroyed tribe? certainly not because that is not the main purpose of their conquest


HISTORICAL FACT:

the canaanite did survey and travelled in their new land in mediterenean teritories where they grow as powerful empire which challenged the might of rome empire in the so called punic wars


history mismo ang makakapag sabi na ang purpose ng Diyos ay not to kill all the canaanite including women and children if its then hindi sila makakarating sa mediteranian teritories.

Ahhh.. we quoted different books from the bible... But lemme ask you this... San nag start ang conquest for canaan?? Sa entry sa jericho db... God said nmm jan meron sya isave...ung family ng harlot at syempre mga loot...

Sge din..lets quote sa Deuteronomy 20

16 Nguni't sa mga bayan ng mga taong ito na ibinibigay sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios na pinakamana, ay huwag kang magtitira ng may buhay sa anomang bagay na humihinga:
17 Kundi iyong lilipulin sila; ang Hetheo, at ang Amorrheo, ang Cananeo, at ang Pherezeo, ang Heveo, at ang Jebuseo; gaya ng iniutos sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios.

Now ur saying na jericho incident didnt actually happen?? Cmon paps... Big part ng kwento ng conquest sa promised land ang jericho..now sabihin mo di tlga nangyare...so wat?? That story is a lie?? Maybe u can make a topic bout the lies sa bible..lets see...hehehehe

SO BACK TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION:

1. Mali ba ang sabi ni Powered by Pancit Canton na un ang inuutos ng diyos na pati bata damay?

2. May pinatay bang bata sa siege ng cAnaanites??

Pakisagot.

 

[stellarium]

Eto na naman si pseudo-historian kuno, master googler.

ako pa pseudo historian kahit kelan b0bo talaga

ang pseudo historian ay yung tulad mong mangmang na walang batayan kundi yan imbornal na bunganga at laway mo


asaan pala ang google dyan? kausapin mo si fabriche na tulad mo atheist na mahilig mag google at sabihin mo napaka b0bo nya tigilan nya ang pag pulot sa g00gle at wikipedia


hindi ko na nga sinamahan ng reference at para naman fair sayo na puro laway lang ang alam mo


sabihin mo saken kelan pa naging credible reference sa debate yan kanal na laway mo?
kelan pa naging refference putak at talsik laway mo?

hindi magiging credible reference yan dahil isa ka lang uhugin at b0b0ng atheist wanna be hehehehe

 

[jayendecastro]

we theists have a moral standard to ground -- the scriptures, and faith in God

the sciptures teach us moral obligations - to save many lives

Wait.... Waaaat???

the scripture endorses:
-capital punishment
-slavery
--homophobia

at madame pang iba??

moral or not?

 

[stellarium]

Ahhh.. we quoted different books from the bible... But lemme ask you this... San nag start ang conquest for canaan?? Sa entry sa jericho db... God said nmm jan meron sya isave...ung family ng harlot at syempre mga loot...

Sge din..lets quote sa Deuteronomy 20

16 Nguni't sa mga bayan ng mga taong ito na ibinibigay sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios na pinakamana, ay huwag kang magtitira ng may buhay sa anomang bagay na humihinga:
17 Kundi iyong lilipulin sila; ang Hetheo, at ang Amorrheo, ang Cananeo, at ang Pherezeo, ang Heveo, at ang Jebuseo; gaya ng iniutos sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios.

Now ur saying na jericho incident didnt actually happen?? Cmon paps... Big part ng kwento ng conquest sa promised land ang jericho..now sabihin mo di tlga nangyare...so wat?? That story is a lie?? Maybe u can make a topic bout the lies sa bible..lets see...hehehehe

SO BACK TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION:

1. Mali ba ang sabi ni Powered by Pancit Canton na un ang inuutos ng diyos na pati bata damay?

2. May pinatay bang bata sa siege ng cAnaanites??

Pakisagot.

nilinaw ko na sayo hindi mo kasi alam ang belief system ko wag mo ako itulad sa ibang theists dito i know the history and compilation of the bible at lagi ko ito sinasabi sa sa mga debate dito, it is not 100% credible but it doesnt mean it cannot contain kernel of truth
the kernel of truth in the bible can attested by historical facts

ang verses na nilatag ko sayo ang detailed plan to conquest the canaan

at alam ko i didisccuss mo ito and i am prepared for this, dahil natalakay na din ang topic na ito sa mga naka debate ko sa social media

tradition at part ng middle estern countries, its cultures, and literature ang pag gamit ng Hyperbole - a method of exageration of speech and rhetoric, bible is not different

in their cultures and literature they can write to wipe or they must wipe the entire army or the entire tribes
the bible used the same, a kind of obliteration language, like killing women and children those are common middle eatern hyperbole

parang sa isang football team and football they can say or write

"we blew and slaughtered the other team" but it doesnt mean they literally slaughtered the other team

the author and the editor of the biblical text likewise most likely followed the rhetoric of his day

if you compare the detailed verses or plan how to exactly conquerer the canaan and its inhabitants and the archeological evidences, and the historical fact that indeed the Canaanite was survived and regrouped in mediterenean region
you see fit that the the author and the editor of the biblical text likewise most likely followed the rhetoric of his day

 

[stellarium]

Wait.... Waaaat???

the scripture endorses:
-capital punishment
-slavery
--homophobia

at madame pang iba??

moral or not?

sagutin mo muna yung tanong dyan hindi puro ikaw nag tatanong wag mo imonopolized ang talakayan


saan mo binase ang moral standard mo? sa pagkakakilala mo ng mabuti at masama?

unless you have no moral standard to ground, u have no right to ask a question about god's morality

i can prove to you wala kayo moral standard to ground not unless u will s†éál the idea of good and evil from theism

 

[jayendecastro]

nilinaw ko na sayo hindi mo kasi alam ang belief system ko wag mo ako itulad sa ibang theists dito i know the history and compilation of the bible at lagi ko ito sinasabi sa sa mga debate dito, it is not 100% credible but it doesnt mean it cannot contain kernel of truth
the kernel of truth in the bible can attested by historical facts

ang verses na nilatag ko sayo ang detailed plan to conquest the canaan

at alam ko i didisccuss mo ito and i am prepared for this, dahil natalakay na din ang topic na ito sa mga naka debate ko sa social media

tradition at part ng middle estern countries, its cultures, and literature ang pag gamit ng Hyperbole - a method of exageration of speech and rhetoric, bible is not different

in their cultures and literature they can write to wipe or they must wipe the entire army or the entire tribes
the bible used the same, a kind of obliteration language, like killing women and children those are common middle eatern hyperbole

parang sa isang football team and football they can say or write

"we blew and slaughtered the other team" but it doesnt mean they literally slaughtered the other team

the author and the editor of the biblical text likewise most likely followed the rhetoric of his day

if you compare the detailed verses or plan how to exactly conquerer the canaan and its inhabitants and the archeological evidences, and the historical fact that indeed the Canaanite was survived and regrouped in mediterenean region
you see fit that the the author and the editor of the biblical text likewise most likely followed the rhetoric of his day

I know how literature works...

So according to u

1. Some bible stories were lies.
2. Authors of the books have a tendency to exaggerate and readers shud not take it literally.

So with ur expertise...ahem...do u think na ang bible eh word of god or just a mere book??

[/QUOTE]

sagutin mo muna yung tanong dyan hindi puro ikaw nag tatanong wag mo imonopolized ang talakayan


saan mo binase ang moral standard mo? sa pagkakakilala mo ng mabuti at masama?

unless you have no moral standard to ground, u have no right to ask a question about god's morality

i can prove to you wala kayo moral standard to ground not unless u will s†éál the idea of good and evil from theism

Sinagot na kita....kaya sabi ko magbasa ka

View ko sa morality is the preservation of the well-being..

Uulitin ko ulit ang nga tanong ko:

1. Ikaw nga...based sa morality na turo ni god mo tama nga pumatay ng bata??

2. Mali ba ang sabi ni Powered by Pancit Canton na un ang inuutos ng diyos na pati bata damay?

3. May pinatay bang bata sa siege ng cAnaanites??

4. do u think na ang bible eh word of god or just a mere book?? (Latest question)

 

[stellarium]

ang mahirap kasi sa inyo jayendecastro

mahilig nyo i question ang God in the ground of morality

the death of someone, or any groups of people either through pestilence or byGods comaandment you assumed that god is a killer, a murdererer

you cannot use that argument on us for 2 reason,

-bacause atheism has no moral standard it can be moral and it can be immoral to you
when you said its immoral, then you put your self in self defeating argument cause you are s†éáling a moral objective argument from God

-God is the Creator of all life, he is has all the right and authority to take it, he has no obligation to keep every life here on earth for 80 or hundred more years, his plan for the life is this world is the eternity after death
because he is the source of life he can take it whatever he decide and whatever it means or cause.


lagi sinasabi ng mga atheists na sila daw ay pro human/humanist pero almost all of atheists in the world is pro abortionist/abortion

halos sinasabi nyo may karapatan ang mga magulang na kuhanin ang buhayng kanilang anak bago pa man ito ipanganak

masama ang kumuha ng buhay sabi mo, against ka sa human/children sacrifice ng canaanite
saan moral standard mo kinuha o binase ang bagay na yon para sabihin iyon ay mali at immoral??

God play as God because he is God

but atheists play as God
when they say parents has the right to kill their child even before it was born in this world oh diba totoo?

ang tanong ko sayo
saan pala kayo kumuha ng authority and moral standards to kill a unborn human life??

at wag mo sakin sasabihin sakin hindi ka pro abortion, hindi ka tunay na atheist kapag sinabi mo against ka sa abortion

at kung sabihin mo man anti-abortion ka?
saan moral standard mo kinuha o binase ang bagay na yon para sabihin iyon amg abortion ay mali at immoral??

 

[jayendecastro]

ang mahirap kasi sa inyo jayendecastro

mahilig nyo i question ang God in the ground of morality

the death of someone, or any groups of people either through pestilence or byGods comaandment you assumed that god is a killer, a murdererer

you cannot use that argument on us for 2 reason,

-bacause atheism has no moral standard it can be moral and it can be immoral to you
when you said its immoral, then you put your self in self defeating argument cause you are s†éáling a moral objective argument from God

-God is the Creator of all life, he is has all the right and authority to take it, he has no obligation to keep every life here on earth for 80 or hundred more years, his plan for the life is this world is the eternity after death
because he is the source of life he can take it whatever he decide and whatever it means or cause.


lagi sinasabi ng mga atheists na sila daw ay pro human/humanist pero almost all of atheists in the world is pro abortionist/abortion

halos sinasabi nyo may karapatan ang mga magulang na kuhanin ang buhayng kanilang anak bago pa man ito ipanganak

masama ang kumuha ng buhay sabi mo, against ka sa human/children sacrifice ng canaanite
saan moral standard mo kinuha o binase ang bagay na yon para sabihin iyon ay mali at immoral??

God play as God because he is God

but atheists play as God
when they say parents has the right to kill their child even before it was born in this world oh diba totoo?

ang tanong ko sayo
saan pala kayo kumuha ng authority and moral standards to kill a unborn human life??

at wag mo sakin sasabihin sakin hindi ka pro abortion, hindi ka tunay na atheist kapag sinabi mo against ka sa abortion

at kung sabihin mo man anti-abortion ka?
saan moral standard mo kinuha o binase ang bagay na yon para sabihin iyon amg abortion ay mali at immoral??

Atheism is about the lack of belief in a god.

That's it.

Kayong mga believers ang nagbabalandra ng god driven morality nyo.... Atheism is not about morality. Atheism does not claim that its morally superior than anyone BECAUSE THATS NOT WAT ATHEISM IS...

Like i said....well being is my basis for morality..i said that sa ibang threads dito at sinabi ko din sau knina pa.

KAKATAMAD KA NG TANUNGIN EH... SAGOT KA DIN MINSAN.

 

[stellarium]

I know how literature works...

So according to u

1. Some bible stories were lies.
2. Authors of the books have a tendency to exaggerate and readers shud not take it literally.

So with ur expertise...ahem...do u think na ang bible eh word of god or just a mere book??

Sinagot na kita....kaya sabi ko magbasa ka



Uulitin ko ulit ang nga tanong ko:

na
1. i ba ang sabi ni Powered by Pancit Canton na un ang inuutos ng diyos na pati bata damay?

3. May pinatay bang bata sa siege ng cAnaanites??
Ikaw nga...based sa morality na turo ni god mo tama nga pumatay ng bata??

2. Mal
4. do u think
ang bible eh word of god or just a mere book?? (Latest question)
[/QUOTE]

wala ka sinagot
kung meron ay i repost mo at tinatamad ako mag back read, tulad ng ginagawa ko sa uhugin b0b0 atheist na kasama mo na si homer ay ni rerepost ko ang post ko


---
my answer

1.
sinagot na kita sa, on the ground of hyperbole and rhetoric hindi inutos na kasama ang mga bata matuto ka magbasa
on the context of God its different at pinaliwanag ko na he is the creator of life he has the right to take lifes
he is immaterial, timeless being he is not a subject on basic human moral standard, rather he is the source of moral standard, he is the authority of what is moral and immoral


2. that is his opinion even the atheist sila sila ay nagsa****** on fundamental questions in science
kaya wag mo dalhin saken ang argument nya iba ang saken at iba ang sa kanya
history ang

3. its a redundant question, i already answered it in your number question

4. the bible is divinely inspired book from God, ito ay nabago overtime dahil sa pagsasalin, and hindi dito naisama ang ibang ealry scriptures, so i am not relying entirely 100% on it, pero ang credibility at kernel of truth nito ay attested in time

 

[jayendecastro]

stellarium

If u want to talk about abortion. Sge gawa ka ng topic..dumidivert ka na eh