despite so-called " god fearing catholic country"... nature beg to differ
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Typhoon struck pineapple land for a reason
- Thread starter songsongjurong
- Start date
Maybe God is not the Christian God,,,I mean pinoyland kenna hit soo hard,,,than when the typhoon reach Viet..it died down soo much that it become nothing,,sometimes Heaven no eyes..
Nothing to do with religion.
"Sitting astride the typhoon belt, most of the islands experience annual torrential rains and thunderstorms from July to October,... with around nineteen typhoons entering the Philippine area of responsibility in a typical year and eight or nine making landfall."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines
What makes me wonder is why they are not better prepared for it.
"Sitting astride the typhoon belt, most of the islands experience annual torrential rains and thunderstorms from July to October,... with around nineteen typhoons entering the Philippine area of responsibility in a typical year and eight or nine making landfall."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines
What makes me wonder is why they are not better prepared for it.
Yes a very good picture. Thanks for sharing. The one on the right is quite good.
Please allow this picture to educate you.
I forgot to add the commentary..
The one on the left is the ORIGINAL Isis-Meri with Horus and the one on on the right is the PLAGIARIZED Mary with Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
At the turn of this century, some Afros in North America proposed that Jesus was a black man, some even came up with drawings of him. I don't think Christians in Asia accepted that.
Cheers!
Cheers!
That's going extreme in an attempt to contextualise things. Jesus would look like any typical Jewish man of His time. Not black, not white, but middle brown.
The Jesus that we've been taught to believe is a Jewish character from a Jewish story. So that person is Jewish, and has middle-eastern looks. But the Jesus that is accepted in faith as The Messiah, can be of any race to suit the believer, it makes no difference whether he is black, white, yellow, or even extra-terrestrial.
Cheers!
Cheers!
I have to disagree with that approach, no matter how culturally-sensitive it tries to be. It puts things on the wrong side. In Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile, male or female, thus it is our differences that makes no difference when we are in Christ.
I personally do not bother or care what race Christ is, but zealous Christians, and some historians do. I have seen paintings of Christ with slanty eyes, dark skinned Christ, and other depictions. If I get a chance to speak to an alien, I will ask him/her/it if they have a Jesus story on the planet he comes from too.
Cheers!
Cheers!
I have to disagree with that approach, no matter how culturally-sensitive it tries to be. It puts things on the wrong side. In Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile, male or female, thus it is our differences that makes no difference when we are in Christ.
It's not about being mere zealous, it's the truth we are talking about. We cannot be making Jesus into our own liking. It is true that there are many variations of images about Jesus but I would say that while none of them will reflect correctly the actual person of Jesus, the closer or more correct depiction would be one that is of a typical Jewish man of Israel. All others will miss the mark significantly.
As far as I know, there is no proof in existence, just faith and a desire to want it to be true. The stories about Jesus are so far just that - stories. The only existing proof was the Shroud of Turin, turned out to be a hoax. And it is uncertain to rely on "truth" of the stories handed down by word of mouth over such a long period of time. It is something we will never know for sure. I suppose we all have to agree that he was Jewish, after all, it was a Jewish family he came from. But the actual events, whether they are historical fact or not are left to the individual believer. In this case here, the truth is not certain. Some may even say they are lies, but for those who choose to believe, they are still shaky.
Cheers!
Cheers!
You mean to say there is no evidence that Jesus existed, or you are saying there is no such person, or you not sure?
No. There is no proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is no verifiable historical record of his life other than biblical quotes, so far. And the bible is not a history book. Even the time/period of his supposed existence is still debatable. He exists because we want him to exist. I don't know if that is good for you, it is good enough for me. The spiritual Christ is more important than the actual person Christ.
Cheers!
Cheers!
On what basis do you say there is NO evidence for existence of Christ? What would count as evidence? Wishful thinking, no matter how sincere, does not make something exists if it does not. It is far easier to produce evidence for historical Jesus than for spiritual Jesus. BTW, there are extra-biblical evidences for Jesus' existence. Not forgetting that our calendar is dated with reference to Him. That is prima facie evidence. Honestly it will be really hard for you to deny His existence, unless you choose to ignore the evidence and just insist there is no evidence, to the contrary. That would, IMO, be kicking against the goads.
Last edited:
I say so because there really is nothing to show that he existed. No historical records. Written, inscribed, or excavated other than biblical quotes. Using "our" calendar only suggests that he lived around 6 A.D., again according to biblical gospels which were written couple of hundred years after that estimated date. Christianity was a movement and growing social phenomena that was destabilizing Roman rule at that time and Emperor Constantine did a political move to adopt Christianity as the official religion and enacted the Nicene Creed which became the accepted Christian dogma thereby averting a mass revolt by the increasing number of Christians. It was a political thing, which has been ingrained into the present day subconscious mind of most Christians who can't decide whether Christ was born on Dec 25 or Jan 7, but that is not important. Christmas Day is the day modern Christians commemorate the birth of their Lord and Saviour and its "accuracy" is no longer accepted as correct.
If you're looking for evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, you can start by proving he was executed by cruxifiction and start from there. If you can find the remains of the cross they nailed him to or the nails they used, that's a start, because there are some people who refute the story that he was crucified (and rose from the dead on Easter).
Cheers!
If you're looking for evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, you can start by proving he was executed by cruxifiction and start from there. If you can find the remains of the cross they nailed him to or the nails they used, that's a start, because there are some people who refute the story that he was crucified (and rose from the dead on Easter).
Cheers!
On what basis do you say there is NO evidence for existence of Christ? What would count as evidence? Wishful thinking, no matter how sincere, does not make something exists if it does not. It is far easier to produce evidence for historical Jesus than for spiritual Jesus. BTW, there are extra-biblical evidences for Jesus' existence. Not forgetting that our calendar is dated with reference to Him. That is prima facie evidence. Honestly it will be really hard for you to deny His existence, unless you choose to ignore the evidence and just insist there is no evidence, to the contrary. That would, IMO, be kicking against the goads.
Similar threads
