Who is the real GOD?

[Kenshiro]

Ah, good.

It's like telling my 6-year old daughter that Santa Claus is real. And when she ask if Santa Claus is indeed real, I would tell her "Stop asking. He's real because I've seen him. Just believe that he exist." And of course she would believe me because she's a little child. Now it would be a different story if she was an adult, wouldn't it?

Yes She would realize that Santa Clause was indeed real. But is misinterpreted and not really who he is contrary to popular culture. Well if she is a very culture oriented or never bother to study or investigate then she would really never know the real santa clause

The verse means We cant see God because we would get destroyed.

Children would never believe in electricity because they can't see it nor can understand it.
CHildren would never believe and appreciate stock trading because they don't understand it.
We are not ten year old as well that the thing that makes us believe are all Eye candy.

This means we can't see God literally because we would then be destroyed(This may be that we humans are not pure or holy enough, or it could be of tremendous power that the at mere sight we get destroyed a logical characteristic of a Being that created the whole universe)

Unfortunately there is a counterfeit to all these and the Bible exposes the base principles of the counterfeit.

[mayamanrich]

naa na cya kinatas.an bro,,, hehe

[kajrot1]

ang mga taw d jd mo tuo naay ginuo kay to see is to beliv man ila gd
pero ang hangin makakita ba ta? dba dili man? pero kabaw ta naa dba?
nya kanang imong utok kita ba ka sa imong kaugalingong utok dba wala man? buot ba pasabot wala sad kay utok wa man ka kita dba?
sama ra sa magnetic force sa ato atmosphere its invisible but it exist kay its the protecting us from the sun's radiation..

mao gali ako g ingon explore the whole universe and ull find what your looking for ^_^..
ay mog tuo anang Darwins theory kay bisag e google pana ninyo 100% fail na ^_^ haah

[pinoy_09]

Because Genesis is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge Genesis with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of Genesis, the error belongs not to Genesis but to the person who has misread it.

Therefore we should not say that Genesis does not have "full scientific accuracy"—a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that Genesis is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

Genesis is nothing more than a collection of fables and poetry. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree, it is futile to find scientific errors in Genesis because it is NOT a science book. With that said, why should we find merit in Genesis to ANSWER the most pressing questions in life, such as where life originated? Furthermore, why should we, especially Christians, try to justify creationism as a fill in a gap created by science? Why should we treat Genesis as more superior to science?

If we are to believe most of what's written in Genesis, then we are to contradict what's been proven as FACT by science (evolution, natural selection). And fact of the matter is, a lot of what's been documented in Genesis have been proven to be demonstrably false.

The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.

The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.

This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired.

Refrain from inserting "HOLY SPIRIT", because as soon as you mention holy spirit, your argument becomes devoid of rationality and logic.

[petjay]

He is the way The truth and the Life....

[pinoy_09]

ay mog tuo anang Darwins theory kay bisag e google pana ninyo 100% fail na ^_^ haah

100% FAIL? Please provide here reliable links which supports your opinion that Dawkin's theory is fail. Otherwise, your opinion remains futile.

[yhokz101]

100% FAIL? Please provide here reliable links which supports your opinion that Dawkin's theory is fail. Otherwise, your opinion remains futile.

or you can provide us with reliable links to prove dawkin's "theory" is not futile...

[wenlove24]

Genesis is nothing more than a collection of fables and poetry. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree, it is futile to find scientific errors in Genesis because it is NOT a science book. With that said, why should we find merit in Genesis to ANSWER the most pressing questions in life, such as where life originated? Furthermore, why should we, especially Christians, try to justify creationism as a fill in a gap created by science? Why should we treat Genesis as more superior to science?

If we are to believe most of what's written in Genesis, then we are to contradict what's been proven as FACT by science (evolution, natural selection). And fact of the matter is, a lot of what's been documented in Genesis have been proven to be demonstrably false.

Refrain from inserting "HOLY SPIRIT", because as soon as you mention holy spirit, your argument becomes devoid of rationality and logic.

Missing the Obvious

Lone Ranger and Tonto


The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.
"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see."
Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."
"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.
Tonto ponders for a minute.
"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"
The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.
"Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."


The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger's response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto's first response that he was missing the obvious.


Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance. Rational explanations for the creation of the universe come down to two main possibilities:

1. Design by an intelligent being
2. Happened by random chance

What are the differences between the two creators?
Characteristic ------God -------SuperUniverse
Transcendence -----Yes ---------Yes
Eternal -------------Yes--------- Yes
Creation of Universe -Designed-- Random
Intelligence ---------High------- Stupid



What we see in the table is a comparison of the two possible types of creators. Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be "stupid" and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process. For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator, instead of seeing the obvious - that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer. Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

1. Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
2. Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.

Well, its your choice. Have you checked your tent lately?

[saitohkiyohiru]

The Bible is not a science book. It does not explain in stark detail how the universe was created. All it says is that that God created lightness and darkness out of nothing. And as if all this non-sense wasn't strange enough---the sun, moon, stars, or anything beyond the atmosphere, according to Genesis, is WATER. I could go on and on how the creation narrative is conflicting with what evidence through science has presented.

Genesis is a good read and it explains creation and it portrays God. Problem with most people who read this is that they personify God. A force created the world, I will call that force God, God manipulated elements like hydrogen, oxygen, etc to produce water steam, etc etc... Science babble2x, blah blah.

Ah, good.

It's like telling my 6-year old daughter that Santa Claus is real. And when she ask if Santa Claus is indeed real, I would tell her "Stop asking. He's real because I've seen him. Just believe that he exist." And of course she would believe me because she's a little child. Now it would be a different story if she was an adult, wouldn't it?

Old school ni na tinudluan. Hard selling ni kun baga. Some people sell religion and faith, some people simply lead by example and deeds.

Because Genesis is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge Genesis with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of Genesis, the error belongs not to Genesis but to the person who has misread it.

Therefore we should not say that Genesis does not have "full scientific accuracy"—a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that Genesis is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.

The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.

This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired.

Very well said.

As for the TS bah...Do you Believe in God or an external force for that matter? If you don't, then why start this thread? You may have many purposes say, make more posts, enjoy stirring the water, find confirmation. Ang ako lang bah, lalis2x mo diri. Pero think about this, we have 5 senses...We are limited by these five senses. Have you ever thought that there might be beings that have more than 5 senses. Have you ever thought what if dili Oxygen and hyrdrogen ato main components? Daghan kaayo ta ug beliefs kay lahi2x man ta ug mga huna2x na mga tawo and that is how we were designed. Point is, if you are looking for answers, you cannot find them here. Even what I post here is gibberish to people who read this. Even those who agree with me don't even fully understand the full thought of my post. I don't even fully understand myself. Because we are bound not to. I just enjoy my life. What is beyond I leave to God.

[Kenshiro]

In an creationist view
Man's ancestors are Man.
Proof - Through reproduction

Evolutionist view
Man came from Monkeys
Evidence - fragments of skeletons reconstructed with a touch of imagination.