Youth groups’ understanding of RH issues boosted

MANILA, July 29, 2011–The youth are hungry for information about themselves and about vital issues of the day—this much was evident based on requests received by Filipinos for Life to deliver talks on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill at a school and to an audience composed of high schoolers.

Some 150 students from various campus organizations of AMA East Rizal gathered for a symposium on the House Bill 4244, dubbed “RH Bill Awareness.”

In a three-hour presentation, Dr. Melissa Poblete and Dr. Abraham Cruz tackled key portions of the bill and explained relevant medical studies to help the students understand the repercussions of allowing the measure to be enacted into law.

Poblete, also a board member of Pro-Life Philippines, pointed out seemingly  harmless sections of the P3 billion piece of legislation but devoted much time to tackle provisions that ought to be rejected and which the doctor referred to as coercive, anti-poor and anti-life.

Armed with documented medical research, she presented how oral contraceptive pills—the procurement and distribution of which are mandated by the RH bill—are actually carcinogenic, specifically linked to an increase risk of breast cancer.

“It is unethical for a medical professional not to disclose these medical facts,” Poblete said.

She also pointed out to the students that these birth control pills as well as other contraceptive drugs and devices, are being pushed to be categorized as “essential medicines” under the law via the bill authored by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman.

After the speaker’s presentation, the question about abortion being considered a “necessity” in some cases came up as a student queried, “Ano po ba ang masasabi ninyo sa aborsyon na isang option kung ang sitwasyon ay dapat papiliin, ina o sanggol?”

“If a treatment should be applied on the mother, and the baby dies [as a result of] the treatment, that is unintentional. It is different from intentionally killing the baby,” Poblete replied. “It’s a matter of ethics that the life of the baby should be considered as well.”

Cruz gave his insights as well on the ethics and Hippocratic oath taken by medical professionals—that they swear to save lives and not to kill. He then enjoined the AMA students to take to heart the importance of valuing life from beginning to end.

The youth parishioners of San Pablo Apostol  in Tondo, on the other hand, were reminded about the importance of embracing chastity and keeping relationships pure, as Filipinos for Life founder Anthony James Perez provided a brief overture before nurse trainer Anna Cosio launched into a simple but informative talk on the medical aspects of the RH bill.

The high school juniors and seniors of the parish were visibly fascinated by the learnings they acquired through the talk even after the speakers were bidding them goodbye for the night.

The forum was preceded by a Eucharistic celebration with San Pablo Apostol parish priest Fr. Ricky Cabugsa FdCC, then a short musical performance by youth parishioners. (Raymond Bandril)

QUESTION ON BIOETHICS - IS PROPORTIONALISM REASONABLE?

Is Proportionalism Reasonable?

Problem Lies in Idea of Maximizing Good

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 27, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Prior to "Humanae Vitae," was the idea of "proportional morality" ever discussed (e.g., in the work of the papal birth control commission)? By proportional morality, I mean the ranking of moral issues such that one issue trumps another. For example, if overpopulation threatens to destroy everything, wouldn't this trump the prohibition against birth control and abortion? -- Rob. Sedona, Arizona.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: The question concerns a moral theory known as Proportionalism, widely held by Catholic academic theologians in the U.S. and Europe. It is a form of ethical reasoning known as Consequentialism. 

A moral theory is Proportionalist (or Consequentialist) to the extent that it appeals to a comparative evaluation of benefits and harms to determine the morality of acts. An act's morality is assessed by weighing the relative benefits ("goods" or "values") to be gained by a contemplated course of action against the corresponding harms ("evils") being threatened. If good outweighs evil, the act is judged morally right despite the fact that evil may have been done. 

In Catholic thinking, the turn toward Proportionalist reasoning post-dates the work of the Papal Birth Control Commission, but not by much. The commission finished its work in the summer of 1966. European theologians were flirting with Proportionalist reasoning at the time, but the idea had not yet come to prominence. 

As late as 1971, U.S. theologians were still wary of Consequentialist morality. The late Rev. Richard A. McCormick S.J., father of U.S. Proportionalism and celebrated theologian at Notre Dame, seems to have assented to the Proportionalist premise around 1972. Before that time, he expressed concern that if the moral theory was applied right down the line, it would destroy the concept of intrinsece malum, that is, that some acts are "intrinsically evil" ex objecto (i.e., by virtue of the kind of acts they are, notwithstanding the benefits to be gained from performing them). (See his "Notes on Moral Theology" in Theological Studies from 1971.)

McCormick was prescient. The method did dispense with intrinsically evil acts and so with the Catholic tradition that defended their existence. He believed that the so-called preference principle was central to moral reasoning; it was self-evident, for it holds that one ought always to prefer the alternative of choice that promises the greater good or the lesser evil, and it would be absurd to choose an alternative promising lesser good or greater evil. This method leads to the denial that there are any actions, described in non-morally evaluative terms, that are intrinsically evil and can never be rightly chosen. He admitted that some norms are "practical absolutes" insofar as it is unlikely that violating them would yield the "greater good" or "lesser evil" (e.g. rape). But the principle still holds and there might be very unusual situations when doing a deed of this kind might be the lesser evil.

Why isn't McCormick's "preference principle" sound? Why can't a calculus of "greater good" and "lesser evil" be an adequate way to proceed? The problem lies in the idea that we can maximize good, that human good can be quantified in any rationally meaningful way. This is both erroneous and presupposes a superficial view of human good and the moral life. 

The human goods at stake in moral choosing are simply not commensurable. How can one measure the value of human life compared to friendship or knowledge of the truth, or how can one measure the value of my life compared to yours? Human good is not simply "out there" waiting to be maximized. It resides in the heart of a person who has committed himself to authentic human goods prior to their external manifestation, and it endures even if one's commitment to them fails to produce good results. For example, the commitment of a mother to the well-being of her child has a reality in her heart quite apart from the success of her endeavors to promote her child's welfare. Her commitment to the good of her daughter does not merely hinge on the possibility of "well-being" which may be realized if all goes according to plan. Or the commitment of a husband to his irreversibly comatose wife. Leaving her for another might very well promise greater benefit. What then justifies remaining faithful to her, perhaps for many years? Certainly no quantitative measure of greater good and lesser evil. Rather, the reverence he has for their marital covenant -- his love for his wife and for the reality of their enduring one-flesh relationship; and for the goodness of her life right now, disabled, unresponsive, supine, and yet really and objectively good. 

A Proportionalist ethic is also superficial. Morality is not simply concerned with "doing good," in the sense of maximizing beneficial states of affairs in the world, but about being good. And being good requires committing oneself to reverencing human good as it exists in the integral and full being of individuals and communities (instantiated in bodily life, friendship, marriage, harmony with God, knowledge of truth, etc.).

Thus the basic requirement of morality is that all elements of human good be respected in all our choices, even if acting contrary promises some measurable benefit. If we act in this way, we shape our wills and ourselves in a way that reverences the good. John Paul II writes: "human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them. They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual traits" ("Veritatis Splendor," no. 71).

A final fatal flaw of Proportionalism is its claim that we can make in advance a comparative evaluation of net good and bad promised by a particular course of action. But to do this one would need to be able to see into the future, to have access to the providential realm. Such an aspiration is no less illusory than the search for the fountain of youth. The apparently objective moral analysis of Proportionalism will necessarily favor certain projected consequences over others, especially those pressing most acutely on the emotions of the chooser, effectively reducing the outcome to subjective preference. Ironically, Father McCormick made this argument very early on, better than I can make it: "But who can confidently make such a judgment? An individual? Hardly. It seems to demand a clairvoyance not granted to many mortals and would paralyze decision in most cases. For example, what individual can say whether this present abortion will, in the long haul, undermine or promote the value of maternal and fetal life? This is especially true if the individual in question has a great stake in the abortion and presumably, therefore is more focused on the immediate impasse than on the long-term stakes" (Notes On Moral Theology 1965 Through 1980, Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981, p. 319; see also John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, no. 77).

If a type of action always destroys, damages or impedes some basic element of human good, then no ranking of proportional outcomes can make that action consistent with integral human flourishing. To deliberately choose that action makes us bad. This is why John Paul II taught in "Veritatis Splendor" that Proportionalism is both unsound and unfit for use in Catholic moral reasoning (nos. 76, 79).

* * *

E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics and director of the Fellows Program at the Culture of Life Foundation; and the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Chair of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado.

[Readers may send questions regarding bioethics to bioethics@zenit.org. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. The fellows at the Culture of Life Foundation will answer a select number of the questions that arrive.]

Pagpapatuloy sa pagsawata sa mga paninira ni Renante Nate

[Note: Ang sumusunod na usapan ay pagpapatuloy ng diskusyon sa pagitan ng inyong lingkod Franz Luigi Lugena at ni Renante Nate ng Iglesia ni Manalo na orihinal na nakapaskil sa Facebook. Para sa link: http://www.facebook.com/umagangkayganda2/posts/248301468516369] 

[Diarick Lim: To all priest and bishop..
"These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;their teachings are but rules taught by men.
Matthew15:8-9
To all man kind..
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew5:20]

[Renante Nate: ‎@santillan di ko alam sa akin ka pala tanong. Im proudly INC as in Iglesia ni Cristo. Kung bibliya din naman lang ang pag-uusapan ay dyan nakasalig ang aming pananampalataya. -no tradition, no rituals. Our most unique feature is UNITY. inihalintulad kami sa kawan ng mga tupa. If you personally observe the behavior of a sheep, you will understand Jesus. ]

‎@Diarick, pakibasa nito:

Gal 6:6
Share every good thing you have with anyone who teaches you what God has said.

Walang masama na magbigay ng donasyon sa mga taong nagturo sayo ng mabuting balita, lalo pa’t wala namang pilitan. Di gaya sa Iglesia ni Manalo mas matindi abuluyan dun. May ikapu, dalawang beses na abuluyan kada linggo, may fine kapag absent sa pagsamba, may DTR, tapos didiktahan ka pa sa pagboto mo. Kala ko ba separation of church and state? Bakit pati political rights ng mamamayan eh pinanghihimasukan?

Renante said, “Kung bibliya din naman lang ang pag-uusapan ay dyan nakasalig ang aming pananampalataya. -no tradition, no rituals.”

Bola yan. Panong nakasalig sa bibliya pananampalataya nyo eh sabi mo nga wala kayong Tradition gayung inaamin ng mga apostol mismo na meron silang Tradition:

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brethren, STAND FIRM AND HOLD TO THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU WERE TAUGHT BY US, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Klaro, may Tradition ang mga apostoles. Yan ang Tradition na minana ng Simbahang Katoliko. Iba yan sa tradition of men na tinutukoy sa Mat15:8-9. Di komo sinabing tradition eh ihahalintulad mo sa tradition ng hudyo. Ano yan tunog style? Eh ikaw na mismo umamin na wala kayong Tradition. Aba, hindi nyo pinanghawakang matibay ang Tradition na tinuro ng mga apostoles.Nilabag nyo bibliya. Hindi kita masisisi kasi bagong litaw lang sekta mo eh. 1914. Kaya wala talaga kayong Tradition. Lolz

[Renante Nate: Franz na nalugi na. You must be severely misinformed. Mahiya ka naman sa sarili mo. Walang ikapu sa INC. Walang fine sa pagsamba. May tarheta kami at walang DTR. Hindi rin kami dinidiktahan sa pagboto sapagkat mag-isa ka at sikreto ang eleksyon sa pilipinas. Alagad ka pa naman ng simbahang katoliko pero di mo naiintindihan ang konsepto ng separation of church and state.

Traditions taught by the apostles written in the bible are very different from the tradition of catholic church. Wala kaming tradisyon sapagkat hindi kami gumagawa ng tradisyon. Kung ano lang turo sa bibliya di na kami lumalampas pa.

Halimbawa, minana nyo ba sa mga apostol ang tradisyon nyo ng poong nazareno sa quiapo? Kayo lang naman nagimbento niyan noong nakaraang mga siglo sa panahon ng kastila

Speaking of abuluyan, where were you these days? Pati pondo ng gobyerno may bahagi ang katoliko. Hindi na nagkasya sa abuloy na nakukuha oras oras at araw araw sa misa sa simbahan pati sa mall, pati sa opisina. Kukuha pa ng pera sa mga donasyon ng mga masasama at ipapakain kuno sa mga dukha. Ano ipinagkaiba niya sa prostitute na pinapakain sa mga anak niya ang bunga ng trabaho niya.

I hope everyone understands you. Truly it is stressful to hear controversy to your only source of living. We are sorry.]

[Renante Nate: Franz na nalugi na. You must be severely misinformed. Mahiya ka naman sa sarili mo. Walang ikapu sa INC. Walang fine sa pagsamba. May tarheta kami at walang DTR. Hindi rin kami dinidiktahan sa pagboto sapagkat mag-isa ka at sikreto ang eleksyon sa pilipinas. Alagad ka pa naman ng simbahang katoliko pero di mo naiintindihan ang konsepto ng separation of church and state.]

Actually, Renante na Natae dahil naremate, puro sablay mga argumento mo. Tanim ka na lang ng kamote ng may kontribusyon ka naman sa NGP ng gobyerno. Anong misinformed na sinasabi mo? Eh ikaw etong puro palusot kala mo hindi ko alam modus ng iglesia mo na tatag lang tao? Eh sa totoo naman na merong fine sa inyo kapag absent sa pag samba eh. Dito samin, bente pesos ang fine sa mga absent sa pagsamba nyo. Yung pamilya yung nagbabayad nun para dun sa umabsent na miyembro. Kaya nga namumulubi yung biyenan nung katrabaho ko eh na miyembro nyo at hindi na umaatend ng pagsamba nyo dahil yung biyenen ang nagbabayad at kinukumbinse sya na umattend na kasi nga namumulubi na.

Tsaka wag ka ngang mang uto. Merong DTR na card din baka kala mo. Ke tarheta o DTR card, pareho rin yun: imonitor attendance ng miyembro. Required din kayo na kumuha ng Certificate of Attendance o CA kapag sumamba sa ibang lokal para hindi mamarkahang absent sa sariling lokal. Wala nang pinag iba yung pagsamba nyo sa official business transaction sa mga opisina na nire-require ng CA. Saan ang mga yan sa bibliya? Ang mga apostol ba eh may attendance card at Certificate of Attendance sa pagsamba nila? Yan maliwanag na tradition ng tao.

Tsaka magpapalusot ka pa na hindi kayo dinidiktahan sa pagboto eh kaya nga nagpapakamatay mga corrupt na pulitiko na makuha ang suporta ni Manalo kasi alam nila na kung ano dikta ni Manalo sinusunod nyo dahil ang hindi sumunod eh may parusa ng pagkatiwalag. Sablay yung rason mo na kesyo mag isa lang daw kapag boboto. Eh hindi komo mag isa ka eh walang nagdikta sayo dahil maaaring yung pagdidikta eh nangyari before you go to the election precinct. Kaya bangkarote talaga argumento mo Renante.

Tsaka yung uri mo ang ignorante sa konsepto ng separation of church and state. Yung prohibition eh sa parte ng gobyerno, upang masiguro na walang pinapanigang pangkat ng pananampalataya ang gobyerno na syang may control sa resources ng bayan. Pero bagamat ganun, may mga isyu kung saan ang gobyerno at simbahan ay PARTNERS. Isang halimbawa dyan ang education at social works. Hindi pwedeng sabihin na walang pakiaalamanan sa isa’t isa ang simbahan at gobyerno pagdating sa edukasyon at social works sapagkat pangangailangan ng mamamayang Pilipino ang tinutugunan dito, hindi exclusive na sa katoliko lang. Hindi mo ata alam na yung mga batang ulila na hindi kayang alagaan ng DSWD eh dinadala sa mga catholic orphanages? Anong masama kung tumulong ang gobyerno na ipaayos yung dingding o bubong ng mga catholic orphanages kung dito naman dinadala yung mga batang hindi kayang alagaan ng DSWD? Anong masama na magdonate ang gobyerno ng sasakyan sa simbahan upang magamit sa pagdadala ng mga relief goods at medical supplies sa mga lugar na di napupuntahan ng gobyerno? Maliwanag nandun ang pagtutulungan ng simbahan at gobyerno upang tugunan ang mga pangangailangan ng mga tao. Sa mga bagay na yan, hindi uubra yung private interpretation mo ng separation of the Church and State. Sapagkat kung makinabang man ang simbahan sa donasyon ng gobyerno upang maisulong ang mga gawain nito sa larangan ng edukasyon at social works, yun ay INCIDENTAL lamang. Ang primary objective ay tugunan ang mga pangangailangan ng mga mamamayan na parehong pinagsisilbihan ng simbahan at estado. Kung hindi mo alam ang ibig sabihin nyan, malaki ang problema mo. lolz  

Yung birthplace nga ni Manalo inexpropriate ng pamahalaan eh. For cultural and heritage reasons. Pero nakinabang din sekta mo incidentally. Hindi kami kumikibo kasi nauunawaan namin separation of church and state. Ikaw ignorante sa konseptong yun.

[Renante Nate: Traditions taught by the apostles written in the bible are very different from the tradition of catholic church. Wala kaming tradisyon sapagkat hindi kami gumagawa ng tradisyon. Kung ano lang turo sa bibliya di na kami lumalampas pa.]

Wag mong iligaw isyu. Maliwanag sabi mo kanina na WALA KAYONG TRADISYON. Eh nabasa ko na yung mga apostol merong Tradisyon. Dun palang buko na iglesia mo na talagang pirated at peke. Paclaim-claim ka pa na nakasalig daw sa bibliya pananampalataya nyo eh malinaw nga na kontra sa bibliya eh.

2 Thes 2:15

So then, brethren, STAND FIRM AND HOLD TO THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU WERE TAUGHT BY US, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Maliwanag may Tradisyon ang mga apostoles. Kayo aminadong wala. Kaya obvious na hindi talaga biblical yang iglesia mo sa Kadiliman, Quezon City. Wala kayong tradisyon kasi 1914 lang lumitaw sekta mo. Hindi ninyo pinanghawakang matibay ang Tradisyon ng mga apostoles. Wala kayong tradisyon eh. 

[Renante Nate: Halimbawa, minana nyo ba sa mga apostol ang tradisyon nyo ng poong nazareno sa quiapo? Kayo lang naman nagimbento niyan noong nakaraang mga siglo sa panahon ng kastila]

Aba, oo naman. Eh maliwanag sa bibliya mababasa na yung Nazareno eh si Cristo. [Mat2:23] At kaming mga katoliko ang tumatawag sa kanya nyan. Hindi kayo. Dun natutupad ang kasulatan. At gaya ni Haring David, ang icon o sagradong imahe ang inilalagay sa karo at prinuprusisyon:

2Sam6:3-5

3  AT KANILANG INILAGAY ANG KABAN NG DIOS SA ISANG BAGONG KARO, at kanilang inilabas sa bahay ni Abinadab na nasa burol: at si Uzza at si Ahio, na mga anak ni Abinadab, AY SIYANG NAGPATAKBO NG BAGONG KARO.

4  At kanilang inilabas sa bahay ni Abinadab, na nasa burol, pati ng kaban ng Dios: at si Ahio ay nagpauna sa kaban.

5  AT SI DAVID AT ANG BUONG SANGBAHAYAN NI ISARAEL AY NAGSITUGTOG SA HARAP NG PANGINOON NG SARISARING PANUGTOG na kahoy na abeto, at ng mga alpa, at ng mga salterio, at ng mga pandereta, at ng mga kastaneta at ng mga simbalo.

Yung icon o sagradong imahe eh  talagang inilalagay sa karo at ipinuprusisyon, sa saliw ng tugtugan. At magandang mapansin na bagamat Kaban ng Diyos ang nasa karo na siyang tinutugtugan nila Haring David, sinasabi sa bersikulo singko na sila’y nagtutugtog sa harap ng Panginoon. Maliwanag na ang presensya ng Diyos ay nasa sagardaong imahe. Kaya may basehan ang prusisyon ng Poong Nazareno.

Eto pa:

Psalms 68:24-25

24 YOUR PROCESSION HAS COME INTO VIEW, O GOD, THE PROCESSION OF MY GOD AND KING INTO THE SANCTUARY.

25 In front are the singers, after them the musicians; with them are the maidens playing tambourines.

Si Cristo na syang Diyos [Juan20:28] at Hari [Rev17:14] eh merong prusisyon na nagtatapos sa simbahan o sanctuary. Eh katolikong-katoliko yung sitas eh.

[Renante Nate: Speaking of abuluyan, where were you these days? Pati pondo ng gobyerno may bahagi ang katoliko. Hindi na nagkasya sa abuloy na nakukuha oras oras at araw araw sa misa sa simbahan pati sa mall, pati sa opisina. Kukuha pa ng pera sa mga donasyon ng mga masasama at ipapakain kuno sa mga dukha. Ano ipinagkaiba niya sa prostitute na pinapakain sa mga anak niya ang bunga ng trabaho niya? ]

Actually, mas talamak abuluyan sa iglesia ni Manalo. Di ba may kanta pa nga kayong “Abuloy, abuloy bawat isa…Abuloy, abuloy” lolz Sa isang linggo lang eh dalawang beses na required na abuluyan meron kayo. Tapos bago matapos ang taon meron pang pasasalamat na inipon buong taon. Pambayad sa mga kapilya nyo na utang kay Manalo. Lolz

Yung patutsada mo patungkol sa mga misa na ginagawa sa mga opisina at mall, ilitaw mo talata na bawal magmisa sa mall at mga opisina. Kaya nandun ang mga pari namin dahil INIMBITAHAN sila. Kung walang imbitasyon hindi naman pupunta dun ang pari. At dahil may imbitasyon, tumutugon ang mga pari namin bilang tapat na lingkod ng Diyos na nangangaral ng mabuting balita “whether in season or out of season.” [2 Tim4:2] In normal circumstances, yung mga misa namin eh ginagawa sa loob ng simbahan.

Tsaka weno ngayon kung tumanggap ng donasyon mula sa masasama? Yung masama eh yung tao hindi yung donasyon na maaring magamit sa kabutihan. Donation per se ay hindi masama. Kaya sablay yung analohiya mo sa prostitute. Eh yung sugo mo nga natakot sa hapon eh kaya sa isang sulat nung 1942 eh ipinasa pamamahala kay Prudencio Vasquez. Yun daw ang gusto ng Hapon kaya kailangang sundin. Imbes na God’s will eh human will ang sinunod eh.Yan ang masama. lolz

Tsaka ang punto eh ganito, yung mabuti lang ba ang pwedeng magdonate? Eh anong karapatan mo na harangin at husgahan yung pagsisikap nung taong nagkasala na gumawa ng mabuti sa pamamagitan ng pagdodonate sa simbahan? Ang masama eh yung gamitin mo yung donasyon labas sa intension ng nagbigay. Sa kaso ng simbahan, yung donasyon eh ginagamit sa intended purpose nito. At kahit sa senate inquiry eh napatunayan yan. Kaya walang masama dun.

[Renante Nate: I hope everyone understands you. Truly it is stressful to hear controversy to your only source of living. We are sorry.]

Actually, navindicate ang mga obispo namin. Ang mga napahiya eh yung akusa ng akusa na namili raw ng pajero ang mga Obispo gamit pondo ng PCSO. Dahil walang napatunayan na merong pajerong binili. Karamihan ay pick up vehicle o dili kaya ay van na hindi naman luxury vehicle at second hand pa. Kaya nga nag sorry ang mga senador eh. Kayo ang pahiya dahil bumalik sa pagmumukha niyo akusasyon niyo.  

ANG REYNA NG KASINUNGALINGAN AT KAPAL NG MUKA! THE CHAIRLIAR!

Before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing on the alleged 7 Pajero Bishops Mrs. Juico was very visible on media denouncing the Bishops for receiving Pajeros from the PCSO. Then, in the Senate when it was established that no Pajero was given she suddenly denied her own words... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR... HE HE HE...

CATHOLIC YOUTH GATHERED IN THE LARGEST ANTI-RH BILL FORUM

Youth heed the call to celebrate Humanae Vitae teachings

MANILA, July 20, 2011–In a massive display of support for the call of the Catholic Church to reject the House Bill 4244 or the Reproductive Health (RH) bill authored by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, student delegates from the Manila Archdiocesan and Parochial Schools Association (MAPSA) and Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) trooped the University of Santo Tomas (UST) campus in what could be tagged as the largest anti-RH forum ever held.

Dubbed “Kalakbay Patungo sa Kapunuan ng Buhay at Pamilya,” the forum marking the 43rd anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) had a combined crowd estimate of 4,000 from UST, St. Paul Manila and Quezon City, Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University-Taft, Lourdes School Quezon City, Letran College-Intramuros, St. Jude Academy, Cainta Catholic School, La Consolacion College Pasig and Valenzuela, San Beda College, St. Mary’s College of Quezon City, Philippine Normal University, Assumption College Makati, Technological University of the Philippines, and Santa Catalina College-Legarda filling the UST Chapel.

Renelyn Tan of World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific (WYAAP) started the forum with an overview of what Humanae Vitae is and how the youth should appreciate the prophetic encyclical of Pope Paul VI. 

Richard Pazcoguin of the UST Institute of Religion reiterated how the RH bill now pending in Congress is anti-life and anti-youth.

Zambales Representative Ma. Milagros “Mitos” Magsaysay, on the other hand, said that the problem of maternal deaths should have been addressed by now.

“We passed a law already, but the government failed to implement the provisions of the Magna Carta for Women,” she said. 

The solon also reminded young women that they should value themselves as they are worth “more than a pack of condoms.”

A video featuring Adamson University and UST students was presented for deepening and workshops as part of the forum, followed by a CBCP for Life music video shown to promote the recently launched resource portal for family and life issues.

Student representatives from participating schools also joined the slogan-making activity, from which the chosen student and school would be awarded a plaque. The slogan will be adapted for the CBCP for Life site. 

Students posted their entries on CBCP for Life’s Facebook page. One student from UST Faculty of Arts and Letters posted, “God gives us what men DESERVE to have (life), not what men DESIRE to have (contraceptives).” (Raymond Bandril)

Photo Album

UNIVERSTY OF STO. TOMAS STUDENTS STAND FOR LIFE! Report by one of our reader, follwer and fellow Catholic Apologist Bro. Ian Joseph Riñon

Pro-lifers at the Tigers' and Falcons' Camps

Last July 19, the CBCP has launched two pro-life forums held at two separate locations: the Adamson University for the laity, and the University of Santo Tomas for the students. Both were successful, and both were graced by pro-life Representatives--Rep. Roilo Golez for AdU and Rep. Mitos Magsaysay for UST. Let me focus on the latter since it was where I was....

The program was held at the UST Chapel. Aside from the host school, which is UST, there were also delegations from St. Paul University Manila and Quezon City, Lourdes School Quezon City, Colegio de San Juan de Letran, St. Jude Academy, Cainta Catholic School, La Consolacion College Pasig and Valenzuela, San Beda College, St. Mary's College of Quezon City, Philippine Normal University, Assumption College Makati, Technological University of the Philippines, Santa Catalina College-Legarda, and though uncharacteristic, small delegations from Ateneo and La Salle.

Aside from Rep. Magsaysay, the other speakers were Ate Renelyn Tan of World Youth Alliance and Prof. Richard Pazcougin of the UST Center for Campus Ministry.

Sir Raymond Bandril gives you the rest of the report, while Ma'am Diana Uichanco reports the Adamson forum.
The Varsitarian also has an article about this.

These are some of the pictures of the events that happened at UST. The rest can be shown HERE.

Take note of the vestments: a stole and a cope. That means, it's a paraliturgical celebration, not a Mass since the priest must wear a chasuble in order to celebrate the Holy Eucharist. 

The guy in green with a scarf near the center is my Pro-life friend.... :) 

Thomasian reinforcements.... Sweet.... 

Thomasians avoid passing through the Arch of the Centuries because of a prevailing urban legend. But students of other schools don't care about it just to get to España. 

The Legion of Life in formation. Find me in the crowd! hahahahaha 

Good thing these guys never hesitated to smile at the camera.... ^_^

And after that, a number of Thomasians have started flooding the CBCP for Life Page with their statements. (and I guess, these are the new set of students handled by Prof. Agui Jalin, mostly from the Faculty of Arts and Letters) This is what I posted: 


"WOW! Another batch of Thomasians standing for life! The Artlets (colloquial term for AB students in UST) have represented, We want to hear from other Colleges as well! GO USTE!" 

Congratulations to everyone!

And, yeah. The people on the other side are not happy about this.

TIGERS! ON THE DEFENSE! NOW! 

Source:

http://mediasocietyandgod.blogspot.com/2011/07/pro-lifers-at-tigers-and-falcons-camps.html

University of the Philippines Student Rejects the RH Bill

Choose self-control, shun birth control – youth

MANILA, July 16, 2011–A student from the University of the Philippines, a school long regarded as among those going with the flow when it comes to support for the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, gave a hopeful picture of  how much young people are capable of understanding.

John Juat, a member of the group UP Against the RH Bill, saw through the supposedly good intentions of the RH bill, citing the dangers that the P3 billion-a-year measure posed on the youth.

What’s wrong with birth control?

Focusing on taxpayer-funded distribution and procurement of birth control supplies, he said that “the youth are in danger of accepting the idea that it is responsible to use contraceptives, when it is clear that by using these, we go against the real design of sex which is for intimacy of the couple and openness to life.”

The bill also misleads young people into “believing that contraceptives are safe, when there are more than 60 documented side-effects of contraceptives. The youth are  in danger of thinking that contraceptives will protect us from different STDs, when the only real solution is chastity and self-control,” pointed out the 21-year-old, who was among the students who took part in the July 1 silent protest against the RH bill in UP Diliman.

Confusing love with lust

Juat added that a birth control measure will make it even more difficult for the youth to recognize love and to differentiate it from lust.

“Contraceptives degrade the dignity of a person, making that person a mere object of pleasure and making sex selfish rather than self-giving. Contraceptives will make men predators rather than protectors of women, and women objects rather than persons,” he lamented.

The solutions to the country’s problem lie in proper allocation of funds and in strengthening our values, he said.

“We are a nation that is pro-life, pro-family, and pro-God. We must be strong in these values…and every law made should be for the common good. As a youth and as a concerned citizen who loves our country dearly, I know that the RH bill will only make our country’s problems worse.

“Let us not sacrifice morality for money. Let us instead work on reviving our Filipino values, protecting the family and valuing life,” Juat concluded.

Juat was one of the panelists at the press conference held by the Interfaith Pro-Life Coalition, which has issued a call for moral recovery and threw its support behind the government’s fight against all forms of corruption.

The group—composed of Catholics, Baptists, evangelical Christians and Muslims–is leading a “Congress of the Faithful” on July 25 to manifest the people’s perspective on the real state of the nation. (CBCP for Life)

Franz Luigi Lugena vs Nick Austria Debate

[Note: This is my debate against an atheist Nick Austria in a discussion thread in Facebook which is up to now is still ongoing reaching more than 1,500 comments. Actually, he is not the only atheist I'm debating in the thread. For the link: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=233474353338938&set=o.202641033110937&type=1&ref=nf]

Franz Luigi Lugena  Eto proof na hindi haka-haka na mamatay tao talaga ang mga atheista:

Idinagdag sa ganap na Hunyo 25 · Gustuhin · · Unsubscribe

Franz Luigi Lugena Akusa ng akusa na mamatay tao daw ang Simbahang Katoliko eh silang mga atheista pala ang ganun. Eto malinaw na may murderous intent na etong Joshuang eto. Kaya kawawa ang mundo kapag majority ang atheista.

Hunyo 26 nang 12:23 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena Eto ang link nyan: http://www.facebook.com/ho​me.php?sk=group_2026410331​10937&id=212269555481418#!​/home.php?sk=group_2026410​33110937&view=permalink&id​=210491398992567

Hunyo 26 nang 12:24 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena Kaya malabong ihayag ni Joshua real identity niya. Pwedeng kasuhan eto ng grave threats eh.

Hunyo 26 nang 12:30 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

I don't care about your opinions. The point is, Joshua is exhibiting qualities similar to atheists in russia whom Solzhenitsyn attributed the 60 million deaths of his people. The fact that you don't blame Joshua is a proof that you are condoning his acts. I'm not surprise because atheists have no objective moral values. Whether you rape someone or you dedicate your life to goodness, all will end up the same. That's atheism.

Hunyo 26 nang 12:35 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Nick Austria while i was on the side of defending joshua from the ad hominem committed against him (photo of his family publicized), i was online during this dispute and have to say that i did not like how joshua behaved himself here. he let his temper/emotions get the best of him and inadvertently became guilty of ad hominem himself. he should've known better.

now having said that, please eschew stereotyping. namaste.

Nick Austria

‎"I'm not surprise because atheists have no objective moral values. Whether you rape someone or you dedicate your life to goodness, all will end up the same. That's atheism."

now again please stop making such sweeping statements. i find this offensive. there is a vast number of atheists globally who practice humanitarianism.

you wouldn't appreciate it if i notioned that 9/11 was committed by theists therefore theists are terrorists/murderers (which i do not). you have a broader mind than that. don't degrade it's integrity by making such irrational not to mention insulting statements as i have quoted above.

Hunyo 26 nang 12:57 PM · Gustuhin · 2 katao

Franz Luigi Lugena FYI, the 9/11 attack is committed by islamic terrorist not catholics. I have no obligation to defend the acts of unbelievers. Like what I said, atheists have no objective moral values. Thus, everything in this world has no real sense and value. Everything is empty. Thank God it is not true.

Hunyo 26 nang 1:02 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, there you go again. you keep making these sweeping statements about atheism which you clearly do not understand. as i have said, there is a vast number of atheists who in fact adhere to humanitarianism and altruism.

there are even atheists who adhere to some of jesus' teachings of benevolence and kindness (in the theory that jesus did exist but was not divine but preached goodness), and there are atheists who use secular ethics. this is undeniable.

i'm an atheist. and i'm insulted by your degrading claims. you may just as well have accused me of condoning rape etc. which is out of line to say the least.

i cited the 9/11 as an example because it was committed by theists. as you seem to use stereotyping mentality to atheists. i can provide a different one if you like, cases of priest pedophilia in the catholic church institution. would it be acceptable to you if i then concluded that theists (catholics in particular) are pedophiles? no because you know that is not so and it is unfair and illogical to claim so.
the purpose of this is not to insult but to illustrate the fallacy of excessively generalizing/stereotyping.

Hunyo 26 nang 1:22 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎@ Nick Austria, I just imitated your atheist cohort’s way of reasoning in the hope that we understand each other more. Where are you when Joshua and Nathaniel are lambasting the church because some of its members committed rape and other sexual immorality as if the church teaches these persons to commit said acts? You are silent in those times. Now when I returned the favor, you are crying foul. I’m sorry to tell you this but you don’t have the moral ascendancy to criticize me. You can’t even police your own side now you want me to stop? If you were insulted by my claims, do you think we are ok with the accusations of your atheist cohorts? What do you want us to do? Agree with the accusations of your atheist cohorts? Fat chance.

I don’t question the fact that there are atheists who adhere in humanitarianism but it doesn’t change the reality that atheists have no objective moral values. Humanitarianism and altruism for atheists are subjective choices. It is not the official teachings or banner of atheism. Atheists can also resort to racism, genocide, and rape and it doesn’t make any difference because in the final analysis [in atheistic view], all will end up the same. The godless belief will likely make a person commit unspeakable evil acts because there is no reason to be good anyway. You do not have the concept of God and the concept of sin.

Unlike atheism, the Catholic Church is very clear on where it stands. Its official teachings are compiled in the Catechism for everyone to scrutinize. That’s why it is unfair to implicate the church as an institution to the crime of its individual member, since the erring member violates church’s teachings in the first place. It’s the person that is to blame not the church as an institution. On the case of atheism, we are not sure because it has no official teachings. Some advocated humanitarianism, while others advocated racism. That’s why I find it funny that you are making a fuss when I said that atheists are murderers. Why? Can you cite an official atheist teaching to disprove my statement? All your talk on supposedly humanitarian atheist doesn’t change the fact that there are atheist like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim who advocated purging, mass killing, genocide, and religious persecution. They are all murderers. Even the young atheist Joshua is showing some potential. And I’m not even sure what kind of atheist are you.

Hunyo 26 nang 2:55 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, did you not read my first comment on this thread explaining how i disaproved of joshua's behaviour in your previous dispute? did you not notice during the very day of your dispute me advising joshua to be civil?

not once have i posted/commented anything here throughout the history of this page that can be considered sacrilegeous in nature. because i'm not like that. and i do not support the blasphemous manner with which excessively militant atheists such as joshua express themselves.
as a freethinker, i believe we must be able to think beyond the prejudices of our beliefs and always try and see the larger perspective.
there, an idea of what kind of atheist i am.

Hunyo 26 nang 3:28 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena ‎@Nick, where are you here?http://www.facebook.com/ho​me.php?sk=group_2026410331​10937&view=permalink&id=20​9792275729146

Hunyo 26 nang 3:31 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria again, i do not support blasphemous/insulting manners of debating theism it does not contribute good to discussions. but i'm not in any authority to forbid my militant comrades from choosing their actions i can only provide my personal opinion to them. which i have on my comment prior to this.

Hunyo 26 nang 3:42 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Nick Austria

Franz Luigi Lugena: "Atheists can also resort to racism, genocide, and rape.."

-true. just as much as people of religious beliefs.

"atheist like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim who advocated purging, mass killing, genocide, and religious persecution. They are all murderers."

-true. they were indeed all murderers and i despise there actions. i would just like to point out something about this cliche that these bastards did not commit their attrocities in the name of atheism but rather of their own personal, sick, twisted ideologies.

Hunyo 26 nang 3:51 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎@Nick Austria, if you cannot police your atheist cohorts, then you cannot stop me to return the favor unto them. What do you want us to do? Smile and agree with your atheist friends? We don't initiate war but we also don't back down if the situation calls for it. The bible states that there are time for everything. [Ecclesiastes 3:1] And surely, there is a time where we are obliged to contend for the faith against those that deny our Lord Jesus Christ. [Jude1:3] If they are dignified in their statements in the first place, we will not end up like this. We are just reacting to what was being thrown at us. Why blame us? Blame your atheist comrades who started maligning our faith.

Hunyo 26 nang 4:00 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

and going back on stereotyping, if you say some atheists here are guilty of such and that reasons for your use of it as well, then wouldn't that be like adhering to the mentality that is "a tooth for a tooth" which not very moral now is it?

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

religion does not hold the monopoly on morality. please do not discredit us atheists of morality just because of your doctrine-based perspective. another thing we must eschew, bigotry.

Hunyo 26 nang 4:06 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, let me clarify that you of course understandably will defend your faith/belief just as i am now defending atheism from your misinformed and diminishing claims regarding it.

we're discussing the act of stereotyping here. if you feel you should only return the favor thereby generalizing every single one of atheists with your negative, distasteful remarks then no i can't stop you. i can only again provide my opinion which i have.
all i'm saying is, you may still refute without having to adhere to stereotyping which you yourself know to be improper and fallacious.

Hunyo 26 nang 4:22 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: -true. just as much as people of religious beliefs.]

But church members committing rape and murders are violating the church’s teachings. So there is no reason to implicate the Church as an institution to the acts of erring members. Doctrinally speaking, the church is against rape and murder. In the case of atheism, we are not sure since atheism has no unified values and beliefs. The fact that many atheists do these acts in grand scale continually means that we can’t dissociate atheism with murder. You can’t speak on behalf of atheism and say atheists are not like this or that, because you have no moral authority on which you will based your objection.

[Nick Austria: -true. they were indeed all murderers and i despise there actions. i would just like to point out something about this cliche that these bastards did not commit their attrocities in the name of atheism but rather of their own personal, sick, twisted ideologies.]

On the contrary, their godless beliefs enable them to commit unspeakable acts of murder and oppression against their fellow human beings. There is no reason that prevents them to do so because there is no God or Church that prohibits them.

Hunyo 26 nang 4:27 PM · Gustuhin · 2 katao

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, "we can’t dissociate atheism with murder" do you understand the gravity of this statement you've just made? this is equivalent to saying that every murder ever commited and will be committed in this world is due to atheism. how erroneous a claim.

i urge you to find out the statistics in prisons. there are far more theists/god believing people imprisoned for having comitted acts such as murder, rape, etc.
having a doctrine to base your morals upon does not make you a moral person (and don't get me started on scripture as a moral code).

i can accept your pondering on the existence of morality from an atheistic worldview, what i cannot accept is you generalizing all atheists to be immoral and even go so far as to calling them rapists, murderers etc. thereby degrading our human integrity. that's bigotry. try and be more open-minded like some of your fellow theists here.

Hunyo 26 nang 4:50 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: "we can’t dissociate atheism with murder" do you understand the gravity of this statement you've just made? this is equivalent to saying that every murder ever commited and will be committed in this world is due to atheism. how erroneous a claim.]

Why not? Do you have an official teaching of atheism to disprove my point? The fact that many atheists are committing countless murders against fellow men as demonstrated in the case of Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Stalin shows that atheism and murder are correlated. Solzhenitsyn can vouch for this:

But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD; THAT’S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn]

He attributed the death of 60million of his people to atheism. If you have doubts as to what he said, I would like you to know that the above statement is supported by first-hand experience and 50 years of research.

The act of murder is contrary to God. So a person committing murder is sinning not only against his victim but against God. In the act of murder, the perpetrator is forgetting God. A person who believes in God will not kill his brother.

1John 5:18
We are sure that God's children do not keep on sinning. God's own Son protects them, and the devil cannot harm them.

[Nick Austria: i urge you to find out the statistics in prisons. there are far more theists/god believing people imprisoned for having comitted acts such as murder, rape, etc.
having a doctrine to base your morals upon does not make you a moral person (and don't get me started on scripture as a moral code).]

These people forgot God that’s why they committed crimes against their fellowmen. These are people who claimed that they knew God but their actions shows otherwise.

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

These people are not true believers when they committed their crime. So your arguments have no basis.

[Nick Austria] i can accept your pondering on the existence of morality from an atheistic worldview, what i cannot accept is you generalizing all atheists to be immoral and even go so far as to calling them rapists, murderers etc. thereby degrading our human integrity. that's bigotry. try and be more open-minded like some of your fellow theists here.]

Why not? Atheism has no objective moral values. Whether you spend your life in sexual immorality or chastity, in committing murders or in doing charitable acts, it doesn’t make any difference. There is no God in atheistic point of view. There is no concept of objective good. All good are subjective centered on the appeasement of one’s appetite. That’s atheism.

Hunyo 26 nang 5:22 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, [Nick Austria: "we can’t dissociate atheism with murder" do you understand the gravity of this statement you've just made? this is equivalent to saying that every murder ever commited and will be committed in this world is due to atheism. ...how erroneous a claim.]

- Franz Luigi Lugena: "Why not?.."

you have just shown me how your doctrine-based beliefs have corrupted your mind with prejudice and bigotry. seriously? you're suggesting that EVERY murder EVER committed and WILL BE committed in this world is due to atheism? seriously? then you are irrational beyond repair. even your fellow theists i doubt would back you on such a jaundiced, discriminant, not to mention highly erroneous notion. i mean how biased can a judgement get?

you look away from the undeniable countless deaths/attrocities that have been committed in the name of god/s all throughout the history of humanity.
you shut your eyes to the vast majority of NON-ATHEIST/god believing convicted felons guilty of murder in prisons and say atheism is the absolute cause of all murder.
and here's the bone chilling one, even the murders that are yet to be committed you tie to atheism.
it is unbelievable how clouded with prejudice your mind is it is disturbing to say the least.

i'm beginning to realize the pointlessness of having this discussion with you because you are truly a bigot who's lost his intellectual integrity.
but then again i got into this in defense of your self-righteous, misinforming, discriminant, hubris claims on atheism.

Hunyo 26 nang 11:50 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: you have just shown me how your doctrine-based beliefs have corrupted your mind with prejudice and bigotry. seriously? ]

Does atheism officially stated that it rejects murder? No. What do atheists in power usually do? They mounted religious persecution, genocide, and mass killings on innocent people. Now ask yourself, where are the atheists when Hitler is massacring jews? When innocent Russians are being killed by Stalin’s men? Atheists actually aided these depots to kill innocent lives. Only the Catholic Church opposed Hitler. As Einstein recounted in an interview in Time Magazine:

“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

ONLY THE CHURCH STOOD SQUARELY ACROSS THE PATH OF HITLER’S CAMPAIGN FOR SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration BECAUSE THE CHURCH ALONE HAS HAD THE COURAGE AND PERSISTENCE TO STAND FOR INTELLECTUAL TRUTH AND MORAL FREEDOM. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. “
[http://users.binary.net/po​lycarp/piusxii.html]

Atheists were nowhere when the jews were being killed by Nazis. Einstein testified that it is ONLY THE CHURCH that opposed Hitler. Atheists were silent. Qui Tacet Consentit. In Russia, atheists are not only silent but actually aided Stalin in the promotion of state-sanctioned atheism by persecuting christians resulting to 60million deaths.

But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD; THAT’S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn]

Now you tell me that atheism doesn’t support murder? Tell that to the marines.

[Nick Austria: you're suggesting that EVERY murder EVER committed and WILL BE committed in this world is due to atheism? seriously? then you are irrational beyond repair. even your fellow theists i doubt would back you on such a jaundiced, discriminant, not to mention highly erroneous notion. i mean how biased can a judgement get?]

A person who can mount murder on a grand scale is a person who doesn’t believe in God. Look at Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Stalin. What do they have in common? The fact that these people were able to kill millions of people without remorse or hesitation is because they do not believe in God. A true Christian will never murder an innocent person. [Mat19:18] The Church is officially against murder. How about atheism? Where is the official stand of atheism that it is against murder? None. The fact that it is not officially against murder means that it is for murder. You can’t be neutral in the face of injustice. As Desmond Tutu once said:

“If you are neutral in a situation of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has his foot on the tail of the mouse, and you say you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

The fact that atheists are silent during holocaust, and aided Stalin and Kim in persecuting christians as part of the promotion of state-sanctioned atheism means that atheism supports murder.

[Nick Austria: you look away from the undeniable countless deaths/attrocities that have been committed in the name of god/s all throughout the history of humanity.
you shut your eyes to the vast majority of NON-ATHEIST/god believing convicted felons guilty of murder in prisons and say atheism is the absolute cause of all murder.]

FYI, catholics who killed other people have forgotten God that’s why they were able to commit said acts. They may claim that they believed in God but I doubt. Their actions deny God’s existence:

Titus 1:16
SILA’Y NANGAGPAPANGGAP NA NAKIKILALA NILA ANG DIOS; NGUNIT IKINAKAILA NG KANILANG GAWA, palibhasa'y mga malulupit, at mga masuwayin, at mga itinakuwil sa bawa't gawang mabuti.

A true christian will never murder millions of innocent lives just like what Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim and Mao did. [Mat19:18]

[Nick Austria: and here's the bone chilling one, even the murders that are yet to be committed you tie to atheism.]

Does atheism reject murder? If not, then what? The fact that atheism has no official stand on murder, and atheist leaders like Kim, Mao and Stalin managed to kill millions of innocent lives, and atheists are generally silent on this, and even aided these atheist despots in religious persecution as in the case of north korea and Russia, will only mean one thing: that atheism supports murder.

[Nick Austria: it is unbelievable how clouded with prejudice your mind is it is disturbing to say the least.]

Actually, it is unbelievable how you are trying to deny that atheism supports murder when you don’t have objective moral values. In the ultimate sense, being a mass murderer and being a good person doesn’t make any difference in the atheistic point of view right? What is this all about? Image buiding?

[Nick Austria: i'm beginning to realize the pointlessness of having this discussion with you because you are truly a bigot who's lost his intellectual integrity. but then again i got into this in defense of your self-righteous, misinforming, discriminant, hubris claims on atheism.]

And you are a charlatan foisting off atheism as good when in fact it is not. Why dissociate atheism from murder when your proponents did countless murderous acts while all the time you atheists are silent? Atheism doesn’t reject murder officially. So what does it mean? Qui Tacet Consentit.

Hunyo 27 nang 12:59 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎" The fact that it is not officially against murder means that it is for murder."

- that is how narrow-minded you are. use a little depth in your perception of the matter. your extrapolations are illogical.

i'm an atheist (ergo i practice atheism). and i'm against murder (like most normal, sane atheists).
your straw man argument states that i advocate killing simply because i practice atheism (which again according to your fallacious argument supports murder). your system of thought is illogical.

listen, i am an atheist. no i do not have a form of bronze age scripture on which i base my morality upon. and NO I DO NOT support murder (as your premise falsely accuses) and am rather against it and other attrocious acts.

why? i adhere to humanistic values (while at the same time reject the supernatural). i believe in the ethic of reciprocation "the golden rule".

i believe as a race we must preserve our species (humanity) and planet. i believe individually our purpose is to pursue happiness in our brief time of existence (being lucky enough to even have existed in the first place) and that there isn't an afterlife but rather that this is it.

many atheists share such perspectives that are nonviolent/peaceful in nature. WE ARE NOT MURDERERS. how irrationaly judgemental of a theist you are. and narrow-minded as to constantly practice stereotyping mentality.

Hunyo 27 nang 2:03 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎"FYI, catholics who killed other people have forgotten God that’s why they were able to commit said acts."

-now that is just comfortable for your side isn't it? when a catholic actually commits murder, "no he's forgotten god ergo he's an atheist ergo catholics don't commit murder, only atheists. all murder, every single one, is due to atheism."

so that's why so many convicted prisoners pray in their cells and draw strength from their god and seek guidance from priests because they're atheists? there is just something wrong with your way of thinking man.

Hunyo 27 nang 2:27 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria and no this is not "image building" (please), this is image protection/defense. you're accusing me and my kind to be murderers. thereby degrading our human integrity. of course i would defend the name of my/our stance (atheism). just as you do when your beliefs are attacked.

i'm done discussing with you. i'll let my comments stand for themselves. goodbye.

Hunyo 27 nang 2:31 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria just a correction to my 5th to the last comment:

"but then again i got into this in defense of ATHEISM FROM your self-righteous, misinforming, discriminant, hubris claims on atheism."
- unintentionally left out two words that are critical to the statement's context. sorry.

Hunyo 27 nang 2:54 AM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: that is how narrow-minded you are. use a little depth in your perception of the matter. your extrapolations are illogical.]

It is you who badly needs depth in your perception. You can’t even disprove that Atheism doesn’t reject murder. What does it mean then? It permits murder. Silence implies consent. Your leaders committed numerous acts of murder and your cohorts never denounced them officially. Now like what I said before, there are atheists that are engaged in humanitarian work, but that doesn’t give a complete picture of atheism. Atheism permits murder in the same manner that it also permits humanitarianism. Why? It is because atheism has no objective moral values as point of reference. All things are subjective. At any rate, my point is that atheism never rejects murder but permits it.

[Nick Austria:i'm an atheist (ergo i practice atheism). and i'm against murder (like most normal, sane atheists).]

It’s your personal choice that you are against murder. But do not foist off atheism as officially and completely against murder. Because it is not. Like what I said previously, atheism doesn’t officially reject murder. On the contrary, a godless person is more predispose to murder because of the devaluation of human life as a natural consequence of atheism. Since man is not created in the image of God which supposed to elevate him from the rest of creatures, man becomes just a two-legged animal akin to monkeys and apes. This devaluation of human life leads to arbitrary infliction of harm and death to fellowmen since killing a person is no different from killing a dog or a cat. That’s why atheism permits murder.

[Nick Austria:your straw man argument states that i advocate killing simply because i practice atheism (which again according to your fallacious argument supports murder). your system of thought is illogical.]

It is your atheistic thinking that is illogical and bereft of any vestige of reason. What I’m trying to point out is that an act of murder may have something to do with atheism. A person becomes a murderer when he committed a murderous act. Stalin, Mao, Kim and Pol Pot are all murderers because they committed countless murders and their atheism have something to do with it. In your case, you have yet to commit murder, so you are not yet a murderer. But if ever you commit murder in the future, that’s primarily because of your godless belief. Because a true Christian will never commit murder:

1 Juan 3:11:12
11Ito ang pangaral na inyong narinig buhat pa sa pasimula, na dapat tayong mag-ibigan sa isa't isa.
12 HUWAG NATING TULARAN SI CAIN NA GALING SA KANIYA NA MASAMA. AT MALUPIT NIYANG PINATAY ANG KANIYANG KAPATID. Bakit malupit niyang pinatay ang kaniyang kapatid? Ito ay sapagkat masasama ang kaniyang mga gawa at ang mga gawa ng kaniyang kapatid ay matuwid.

The bible is very clear, Christianity is against murder. In the case of members who committed murders, their actions alone betray them that they are not true christians.

[Nick Austria:listen, i am an atheist. no i do not have a form of bronze age scripture on which i base my morality upon. and NO I DO NOT support murder (as your premise falsely accuses) and am rather against it and other attrocious acts.]

You being an atheist mean that you don’t have objective moral values. All your talk against murder and atrocious acts are all subjective, ephemeral and has no bearing in actual reality. Why, you are just talking about your personal choices here. You can’t just say that what you want or what you like is true for everyone all the time. You can’t say that your personal choice [that you are against murder] is what atheism is all about. Are you an authority to speak on behalf of atheism?

[Nick Austria: why? i adhere to humanistic values (while at the same time reject the supernatural). i believe in the ethic of reciprocation "the golden rule".]

You adhere to ethic of reciprocation? So if someone kills your sister or brother, you will also resort to killing? So that’s murder for you.

[Nick Austria: i believe as a race we must preserve our species (humanity) and planet. i believe individually our purpose is to pursue happiness in our brief time of existence (being lucky enough to even have existed in the first place) and that there isn't an afterlife but rather that this is it.]

Then your existence is no different from animals that live and die with no significant purpose.

Ecclesiastes 3:19
Sapagka't ang nangyayari sa mga anak ng mga tao ay nangyayari sa mga hayop: sa makatuwid baga'y isang bagay ang nangyari sa kanila: kung paanong namamatay ang hayop, gayon namamatay ang tao; oo, silang lahat ay may isang hininga; AT ANG TAO AY WALA NG KARANGALANG HIGIT SA HAYOP: SAPAGKA’T LAHAT AY WALANG KABULUHAN.

What an empty and sad philosophy your strain of atheism is. A bit epicurean and focused only on the ephemeral. What kind of happiness you are talking about? Temporary happiness? That’s not true happiness. That is just an illusion in the final analysis. That’s why I understand that death is a terrible thing for atheists. Unlike Christians, who welcomes death with courage and hope because they believe that it is the end but actually a transition towards unity with God, the source of all good.

[Nick Austria: many atheists share such perspectives that are nonviolent/peaceful in nature. WE ARE NOT MURDERERS. how irrationaly judgemental of a theist you are. and narrow-minded as to constantly practice stereotyping mentality.]

Granting that many atheists are nonviolent, still that doesn’t define atheism completely. Atheism has a dark side that you purposely refuse to see: the atheist mass murderers in the likes of Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tito, and Castro. Atheism permits murder. Its silence on the moral depravity of the act of murder means that it consents murder. Maybe you are not a murderer right now. But if ever you commit one in the future, that is mainly due to your atheistic beliefs.

Hunyo 28 nang 3:30 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: -now that is just comfortable for your side isn't it? when a catholic actually commits murder, "no he's forgotten god ergo he's an atheist ergo catholics don't commit murder, only atheists. all murder, every single one, is due to atheism."]

It is your way of thinking that is wrong. Unlike Atheism, Christianity is against murder, officially. This is clearly enunciated in the scriptures:

1 John 3:11-12
11 Sapagka't ito ang pasabing inyong narinig buhat ng pasimula, NA MANGAGIBIGAN TAYO SA ISA’T ISA:
12 HINDI GAYA NI CAIN NA SIYA’Y SA MASAMA, AT PINATAY ANG KANIYANG KAPATID. At bakit niya pinatay? Sapagka't ang kaniyang mga gawa ay masasama, at ang mga gawa ng kaniyang kapatid ay matuwid.

So a true follower of Christ will not murder his brother. Instead of killing, Christians are admonished to love their brothers. So professing christians committing murders are not really true christians. Their actions manifest their unbelief to God.

Titus 1:16
SILA’Y NANGAGPAPANGGAP NA NAKIKILALA NILA ANG DIOS; NGUNI’T IKINAKAILA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANILANG MGA GAWA, palibhasa'y mga malulupit, at mga masuwayin, at mga itinakuwil sa bawa't gawang mabuti.

The bible is clear when it said that there are those who claim that they know God but their actions speak otherwise. For you to include these people among true Christians is a clear deception on your part just to malign our faith. Apparently, we know better. Christians are actually taught to depart from sin and walk into the path of righteousness in order to set themselves apart from godless people. Proof that Christianity is not for murder.

2 Cor 15:34
GUMISING KAYO NG AYON SA KATUWIRAN, AT HUWAG MANGAGKASALA; SAPAGKA’T MAY MGA IBANG WALANG PAGKAKILALA SA DIOS: sinasabi ko ito upang kayo'y kilusin sa kahihiyan.

How about atheism? Does atheism rejects murder officially?

[Nick Austria: so that's why so many convicted prisoners pray in their cells and draw strength from their god and seek guidance from priests because they're atheists? there is just something wrong with your way of thinking man.]

Wrong. Consider the time element, Mr. Atheist. During the time when they committed their evil acts, they forgotten God. It is only when they are exposed to the hardships of prison that they are clinging God. They didn’t commit their crimes because they believe in God. Our christian faith never teaches that we should murder our brothers. Committing a crime like murder is a sin against God. So it is only logical that people who believe and fear God will never commit murder:

2 Tim 2:19
Gayon ma'y ang matibay na pinagsasaligan ng Dios ay nananatili na may tatak nito, NAKIKILALA NG PANGINOON ANG MGA KANIYA: AT, LUMAYO SA KALIKUAN ANG BAWA’T ISA NA SUMASAMBITLA NG PANGALAN NG PANGINOON.

God’s people depart from iniquity. Those who commit murder are not of God. So for you to implicate Christianity with murder is a clear deception on your part. Actually, it is Atheism that permits murder. It has no moral values nor intrinsic principles that say otherwise.

Hulyo 01 nang 11:41 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena: "You can’t even disprove that Atheism doesn’t reject murder. What does it mean then? It permits murder. Silence implies consent. Your leaders committed numerous acts of murder and your cohorts never denounced them officially."

- you speak of atheism as if it were an organized movement of some sort when really it is, in its simplest definition, the non-belief in god/s. so stop referring to stalin etc. as our "leaders". they acted as individuals with their tyrannic ideologies.

tying murder to atheism claiming that it permits such because of the philosophical standpoint's absence of belief in deities is a misextrapolation and a straw man argument. thereby a logical fallacy.

the premise that belief in god/s and having a set of doctrines that go along with it is the only way to have morality is merely a subjective opinion as well.

it is the assumption that the only "correct" moral values are that which come from a theistic view (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural force).

"You can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of your argument."

atheistic morality is simply that which does not assume such premise (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural force). nonetheless morality is existent and evident.

Hulyo 01 nang 9:01 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria what ever happened to jesus christ's "love thy enemies" Franz Luigi Lugena? to think how you've been constantly arguing absolutism of doctrine-based morality. how god-believing christians who commit acts that violate said doctrine cannot be considered "true christians".
countless ad hominem attacks (even one involving a debate opponent's father) is not very jesus-like is it? just saying.

Hulyo 01 nang 11:23 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎@Nick, the bible said that there is always a time for everything. [Ecclesiastes3:1] Definitely there is a time when you have to name a spade a spade. Your atheist cohorts are maligning our faith so what do you want me to call them? Nathaniel for example, said that God raped Virgin Mary. Do you want me to praise them for what they did? Actually, I just quoted a statement of Christ in John 8:44 about liars. I just followed the examples of Christ. I called them for what they really are. They belong to their father the devil. You are not my judge so you have no moral authority to tell me that I violated our doctrines. "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me." [1Cor4:4]

Hulyo 01 nang 11:40 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: - you speak of atheism as if it were an organized movement of some sort when really it is, in its simplest definition, the non-belief in god/s. so stop referring to stalin etc. as our "leaders". they acted as individuals with their tyrannic ideologies.]

Being organized or not is not the issue. The point here is that atheism, particularly on the level of principle, doesn’t reject murder while Christianity does.

1 John 3:11-12
11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, THAT WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER,
12 AND NOT BE LIKE CAIN WHO WAS OF THE EVIL ONE AND MURDERED HIS BROTHER. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.

Christianity officially teaches its adherents not to commit murder. The text says, NOT BE LIKE CAIN who murdered his brother. This is one of the obvious differences between my faith and your godless belief. Christianity rejects murder while atheism does not.

Now, whether those leaders acted individually or as a group, the obvious pattern is that they are all atheist. Their godless belief is one of the reasons that they were able to kill and slaughter millions of people. You may ask why is that so? It is because of the devaluation of human life which is the natural consequence of atheism. To deny God’s existence, is to deny that man is created in the image of God, thereby denying as well that man possesses dignity and honor which separates him from plants and animals. So in atheism, killing man is no different from killing a cat or a dog. This devaluation of human life as a natural consequence of atheism, is the reason why most atheist leaders resorted to mass killings.

[Nick Austria: tying murder to atheism claiming that it permits such because of the philosophical standpoint's absence of belief in deities is a misextrapolation and a straw man argument. thereby a logical fallacy.]

Atheism permits murder because it doesn’t condemn nor rejects it. Qui tacet consentit. You can’t be neutral in the face of injustice, as Demons Tutu said. It is either you are for or against. In the case of atheism, it is for murder. Proponents of atheism are for murder. Look at Kim, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin. Furthermore, when these atheist leaders were mounting large-scale massacres, where are the atheists? Either you aided those leaders or you are silent. Einstein can attest to this during the holocaust. Only the Church opposed Nazism. All others are silent. So between Christianity and atheism, it is atheism that permits murder.

[Nick Austria: the premise that belief in god/s and having a set of doctrines that go along with it is the only way to have morality is merely a subjective opinion as well.]

I’m talking about objective moral values here. If there are objective moral values, then it is logical to believe that there is God. Moral values that remain true regardless of people’s opinions can only come from a being that is independent and higher than man, and that we call God.

To deny God is to deny the objective moral values since there will be no independent higher authority that will set the moral standards applicable for all men at all times. The moral standards will then become arbitrary and all values will be subjective. So stealing, murder and rape will no longer be considered objectively wrong but can be right for a particular individual or culture espousing a different moral standard that permits these acts. This is the reason why atheism permits murder. Its denial of God prevents it to reject murder officially since it has no objective moral ground to base upon its objection. And a person who rapes and murders people is still an atheist so long as he denies God.

[Nick Austria: it is the assumption that the only "correct" moral values are that which come from a theistic view (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural force).
"You can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of your argument."]

Truth can never contradict itself. If you said that there is no God and I say there is God, we can’t be both right. One of us is definitely wrong. And all evidences point out that you are wrong. The fact that rape is considered a wrongful act in all cultures and in all history testifies to the fact that there are objective moral values proving the existence of God, whose nature and will are manifested on these values. [i.e., goodness, justice, love, etc.] Atheism can’t claim that it has objectively correct values because it denies God. All it has are subjective values. So who is your authority to say that murder and rape are intrinsically wrong? You may say that rape and murder are wrong but your belief is subjective and no better than the belief of others holding the idea that rape and murder are good.

[Nick Austria: atheistic morality is simply that which does not assume such premise (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural force). nonetheless morality is existent and evident. ]

But the morality you are talking about is subjective. Since you deny the existence of God, you have no basis to say that only your belief is correct among the diversity of other belief systems. You can’t say that your own morality, which holds that rape and murder are wrong, is more valid than the morality of others espousing contrary beliefs [that rape and murder is correct]. Why? Because you have no authority who clearly defines your set of moral values. Kaya kahit ano pwede sa atheism. Kahit murder.

That’s why I’m amused about your pathetic attempt to foist off atheism as good by pointing to atheist engaged in humanitarianism, as if that’s the complete picture of atheism. Actually, humanitarianism for atheists is just a subjective choice. You must remember that there are atheists who choose murder and genocide instead. That’s the subjectivism aspect of atheism.

Hulyo 03 nang 12:30 AM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, "To deny God is to deny the objective moral values since there will be no independent higher authority that will set the moral standards applicable for all men at all times."

- once again, this is the PRESUMPTION that human morality must be provided/commanded by a purported supernatural deity (the judeo-christian god in particular) and that it cannot exist otherwise.
you can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of your argument. which makes this notion a mere subjective opinion on your part just as well.

freethinkers adhere to secular ethics. naturalistic moral philosophies that require not belief in a supernatural source only human logic and reason. through which man is able to draw moral principles from knowledge and understanding of the consequences of their actions to society/humanity in general.

"We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." - Dalai Lama

Hulyo 03 nang 3:48 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena, "If you said that there is no God and I say there is God, we can’t be both right. One of us is definitely wrong. And all evidences point out that you are wrong."

- how self-righteous and hubristic a statement. what evidence? your presumption on moral absolutism and christianity? no i don't think so. the very core of your entire argument is a presumption. you presume that belief in a purported supernatural deity (christian specifically) is prerequisite to human morality/ethics.

Hulyo 03 nang 4:31 AM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austri: - once again, this is the PRESUMPTION that human morality must be provided/commanded by a purported supernatural deity (the judeo-christian god in particular) and that it cannot exist otherwise.
you can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of your argument. which makes this notion a mere subjective opinion on your part just as well.]

You are not reading correctly. This is not just morality but OBJECTIVE MORALITY which is true and valid regardless of human views and perceptions. Now if these don’t come from God, then from whom do these come from? Up until now, you haven’t shown any alternative.

There is no presumption in my arguments, I’m just showing you that the existence of God is logical based from the existence of objective moral values. The fact that there are acts considered wrong in all cultures like for example rape, attest to the existence of objective moral values. If these values came from man, then it can’t be considered as objective since it will be just one of the many values generated by diversified human culture. Who is the authority among men to say that these values are valid for all times and for all people? Thus, objective moral values can only come from a being that is independent and higher than man. This being is what we call God. There is no presumption here because up until now, you can’t provide an alternative for God.

[Nick Austri: freethinkers adhere to secular ethics. naturalistic moral philosophies that require not belief in a supernatural source only human logic and reason.]

Actually it is you who is presumptuous. The term “free thinker” is not exclusive of atheist. Do you mean to say that our theologians and philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Isenkrahe, Jaki and Frank Beckwith are not free thinkers just because they believe in God? How presumptuous of you. You are inventing a rule that only atheists are free thinkers. FYI, our catholic scientist and philosophers have contributed more to the advancement of science, philosophy, and law than all atheists combine.

To believe in the existence of a supernatural being called God is not contrary to reason. Actually, God’s existence is logical as shown by our philosophers and theologians. Simple cause and effect will tell you that everything in this world is caused by something, and if you will trace it back to the origins of the universe, you will end up with the first cause, an independent and uncaused cause. That first cause is God.

[Nick Austri: through which man is able to draw moral principles from knowledge and understanding of the consequences of their actions to society/humanity in general.
"We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." - Dalai Lama]

But without God, man’s moral standard will be arbitrary and subjective. You have no basis then to say that your belief that “rape and murder is wrong” is more valid than the belief of others which provides for the contrary. Your opinion will just be as good as the others. To say that “rape is wrong” will just be a subjective opinion then. Imagine that. That’s the problem of atheism. It has no higher and independent authority to define and set its moral standards. Everything is subjective in atheistic perspective. This is the reason why atheism can’t objectively reject murder. It has no objective basis to base upon its rejection. And because of subjectivism that permeates atheistic morality, we can say that atheism permits murder.

Hulyo 03 nang 3:50 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: - how self-righteous and hubristic a statement. what evidence? your presumption on moral absolutism and christianity? no i don't think so. the very core of your entire argument is a presumption. you presume that belief in a purported supernatural deity (christian specifically) is prerequisite to human morality/ethics.]

Existence of objective moral values is not a presumption. The fact that there are moral absolutes testifies that there are what we call objective moral values. Why it is that rape, stealing and murder are considered wrong in all human cultures? Why is it that parents have to take care of their children? That we have to respect our elders? These are some of the examples that objective moral values exists. OBM shows that God exists. Only a higher and independent authority [i.e. God] can come up with a moral standard that is valid for all men at all times. If you disagree with this, then show us an alternative. You just kept on denying without showing any basis.

Hulyo 03 nang 4:06 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena: "This is not just morality but OBJECTIVE MORALITY which is true and valid regardless of human views and perceptions. Now if these don’t come from God, then from whom do these come from? Up until now, you haven’t shown any alternative."

- we seem to be somewhat going in circles with this but perhaps i need to further clarify to you my answer. as i have said: you are simply presuming that a supernatural outside source is prerequisite for the existence of human morality/ethics which includes OBJECTIVE MORALITY. a misextrapolation or to put it more subtly, a personal subjective opinion.

now on moral absolutism, mind you that this is only one among various normative ethical theories such as deontological ethics, utilitarianism, and so on. including moral relativism in which morality can be relativistic to people/culture etc.

i.e. during ancient roman times men called gladiators dying in arenas was considered a form of entertainment, slavery used to be an acceptable concept to society, an so on. and in this sense, morality is relativistic to culture/civilization of man as such are considered today to be savage and unacceptable.

now, for the sake of discussion, even if say we do accept moral absolutism, this does not equate to/prove the existence of a deity(ies) much less an anthropomorphic one such as the judeo-christian god.

Hulyo 03 nang 9:31 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria there need not be an "alternative" pertaining to god as an outside source for morality because what i'm saying is that there is no need for such for morality (even that which are objective in nature) to exist.

Hulyo 03 nang 9:37 PM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria

‎Franz Luigi Lugena: "To believe in the existence of a supernatural being called God is not contrary to reason. Actually, God’s existence is logical as shown by our philosophers and theologians. Simple cause and effect will tell you that everything in this world is caused by something, and if you will trace it back to the origins of the universe, you will end up with the first cause, an independent and uncaused cause. That first cause is God."

- the cosmological argument (existence of a first uncaused cause of the universe). while this is not entirely illogical a concept, even if there were suppose an uncaused cause, to conclude that said uncaused cause is the scripture-based, judeo-christian god in particular is an incoherent extrapolation.

the clockwork universe theory's version of god (first cause) is more reasonably applicable to the cosmological view. quite similar to the deistic as well as spinoza's interpretaion of god (einstein's as well) in which said god/creator/first cause is non-anthropomorphic, non-personal and non-intervening in nature.

Hulyo 03 nang 10:48 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: - we seem to be somewhat going in circles with this but perhaps i need to further clarify to you my answer. as i have said: you are simply presuming that a supernatural outside source is prerequisite for the existence of human morality/ethics which includes OBJECTIVE MORALITY. a misextrapolation or to put it more subtly, a personal subjective opinion.]

You said I’m presuming but you haven’t given your reason. So it is you who is clearly presuming. What I’m doing is showing you the logic of believing to God on the basis of the existence of objective moral values. The fact that there are acts that all cultures can’t tolerate testifies to the existence of objective moral values. Values whose validity is independent to human views and perception. For example, rape is objectively a wrongful act. To deny the existence of OMV will mean that rape being wrong is just a subjective opinion. We can’t accept that. Rape remains wrong even if it is legalized by the state. So OMV, values that are valid for all man at all times, can’t come from a mere man. To say so will result to the loss of its objectivity and OMV will just be another subjective values produced by diversified culture of man. So OMV can’t come from man. It can only come from an independent and superior being [than man] whose authority is all encompassing, transcending time and space. That being is God. If it is not God, then show your alternative. Up to now, you are evading your responsibility to show an alternative. You can’t just object without showing a more viable alternative. That’s just presuming.

[Nick Austria: now on moral absolutism, mind you that this is only one among various normative ethical theories such as deontological ethics, utilitarianism, and so on. including moral relativism in which morality can be relativistic to people/culture etc.]

So what? Just like in taking examinations, it doesn’t mean that since there are many possible choices, there is no one true correct answer. Truth can’t contradict itself. So if you say that there are no objective moral values on the basis of diverse theories on the matter, and I say that there are objective moral values, we can’t be both right. Difference in belief is one thing. What is important is the correct belief. And the fact that there are things that all cultures in the world are unified in rejecting and accepting, testifies to the existence of objective moral values.

[Nick Austria: i.e. during ancient roman times men called gladiators dying in arenas was considered a form of entertainment, slavery used to be an acceptable concept to society, an so on. and in this sense, morality is relativistic to culture/civilization of man as such are considered today to be savage and unacceptable.]

No, letting people kill each other for entertainment remains objectively wrong despite the Roman Empire sanctioning it. In fact, killing is prohibited in the Roman Empire because like other cultures, they value human life. It just that there is a distortion in the way they perceive facts. For pagan Rome, gladiators are slaves with no rights, and considered property of lords; therefore they are not recognized as fellowmen so the concept of letting these gladiators kill each other as a form of entertainment is ok with them. This is the same with pro choice movement which advocates for the universal access to abortion. Proponents of pro choice even pointed out quality life as the reason why women should have access to abortion. So abortion is ok with the pro choice movement because the fertilized egg is not considered human, just a piece of tissue, so removing it is not murder. As you can see, it is only in the justification [born out of the difference in the perception of facts] that people or groups tend to differ, but human life is still objectively valued. Thus, you’re argument doesn’t disprove in any way the existence of objective moral values.

[Nick Austria: now, for the sake of discussion, even if say we do accept moral absolutism, this does not equate to/prove the existence of a deity(ies) much less an anthropomorphic one such as the judeo-christian god.]

What’s your basis? You just keep on objecting without bothering to show proofs for your objection. On our part, we have basis. We have the Church and Scriptures which communicates Divine Revelation and Will. Rape is objectively bad not because I or you think it is bad or because it is prohibited by law, but because it is, first and foremost, against the will of God. It is on this basis that rape is considered an objectively wrong act. An independent and superior [than man] law giver willed that rape is bad, that’s why it is bad, objectively speaking. If there is no God, from whom do objective moral values come from?

[Nick Austria: there need not be an "alternative" pertaining to god as an outside source for morality because what i'm saying is that there is no need for such for morality (even that which are objective in nature) to exist.]

Wrong. There are no objective moral values if there is no God on which these values are grounded. Moral standards will then be arbitrary and subjective. So rape being a wrongful act will just be a subjective opinion; it will be just one of the many views springing from diverse human culture. Same with the case of marital infidelity, murder, and stealing, these acts will not be wrong objectively if there is no God. This is actually the case in Atheism. Anything is allowed because you have no God to serve as a moral compass. This is the reason why I said that atheism permits murder. The subjectivism aspect of atheistic morality makes every thing permissible, even murder and rape.

Kahapon sa ganap na 12:14 AM · Gustuhin

Franz Luigi Lugena

‎[Nick Austria: the cosmological argument (existence of a first uncaused cause of the universe). while this is not entirely illogical a concept, even if there were suppose an uncaused cause, to conclude that said uncaused cause is the scripture-based, judeo-christian god in particular is an incoherent extrapolation.]

On what basis do you say that the first cause can’t be our God? Don’t just object, show a more viable alternative. Of course, the Cosmological Argument is logical. It is one of the potent arguments for the existence of God. The fact that you can’t find it illogical makes your atheistic belief problematic.

[Nick Austria: the clockwork universe theory's version of god (first cause) is more reasonably applicable to the cosmological view. quite similar to the deistic as well as spinoza's interpretaion of god (einstein's as well) in which said god/creator/first cause is non-anthropomorphic, non-personal and non-intervening in nature.]

The clockwork universe theory you are talking about is just a theory. Furthermore, what you are doing is ad verecundiam. Just because Spinoza or Einstein espoused similar beliefs doesn’t make your argument valid. I can also cite you equally or possibly more knowledgeable people who believe in the contrary but that’s beside the point. I find it amusing that you readily believe a theory just to articulate your anti God bias. I think your allegiance to clockwork universe theory is just a way to circumvent the validity of Cosmological Argument [because you can’t deny its validity] by espousing a god that is almost non-existent.

As the English philosopher, Samuel Clarke said:

“The Notion of the World's being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; IS THE NOTION OF MATERIALISM AND FATE, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) TO EXCLUDE PROVIDENCE AND GOD’S GOVERNMENT IN REALITY OUT OF THE WORLD."

[www.crystalinks.com/clockw​orkuniverse.html]

Here are the proofs that you’re wrong with your clockwork universe theory:

Proof 1:
The problem with your theory is that God desired that he shall be known by his creation.

Hosea 6:6
I want you to show love, not offer sacrifices. I WANT YOU TO KNOW ME more than I want burnt offerings.

That’s why he created the world bearing his goodness and qualities in order for us to know him:

CCC#41
All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. THE MANIFOLD PERFECTIONS OF CREATURES – THEIR TRUTH, THEIR GOODNESS, THEIR BEAUTY – ALL REFLECT THE INFINITE PERFECTION OF GOD. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures' perfections as our starting point, "FOR FROM THE GREATNESS AND BEAUTY OF CREATED THINGS COMES A CORRESPONDING PERCEPTION OF THEIR CREATOR.”

Romans 1:19-20
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, BECAUSE GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM.
20 Ever since the creation of the world HIS INVISIBLE NATURE, namely, his eternal power and deity, HAS BEEN CLEARLY PERCEIVED IN THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. So they are without excuse;

And with this desire and initial efforts to be known, God literally intervene in history when at the fullness of time, God became man and was born of woman [Gal 4:4; John 1:14], was witnessed, touched, and heard by the apostles [1 John1:1-3], and communicated his message of salvation to all people. [Mat4:17]

That’s why your idea of an amorphous and non-intervening God is wrong.

Proof 2:
If God can create a self sufficient machine called the universe, what makes you think he can’t assume a human form? Nothing is impossible to God. [Luke1:37]

Proof 3:
Do you think a self-sufficient machine, which is according to your clockwork theory is the universe, is consistent and possible within the framework of your secular ethics?

Proof 4:
During the death of Christ on the Cross, there occurs an eclipse [Luke23:44-45]. This eclipse is considered an intervention, a disturbance in the otherwise perfectly functioning clock-world:

“A similar concept goes back, to John of Sacrobosco's early 13th-century introduction to astronomy: On the Sphere of the World. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe as the machina mundi, the machine of the world, SUGGESTING THAT THE REPORTED ECLIPSE OF THE SUN AT THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS WAS A DISTURBANCE OF THE ORDER OF THAT MACHINE.”

www.crystalinks.com/clockw​orkuniverse.html

In fact, Sacrobosco put it this way:

“The eclipse was not natural, but, rather, miraculous and contrary to nature".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cru​cifixion_darkness_and_ecli​pse

The eclipse is an intervention from God. Another clear proof that your notion of a non-intervening God is wrong.

Proof 5:
Any created being or thing [created ex nihilo] needs some form of sustenance or support for it to continue to exist. It can’t exist apart from its creator. The role of God is not only to cause the existence of things but also to sustain his creation. Your clockwork universe theory reduces the role of God as a mere initiator of creation, portrays God as irresponsible because he abandons his creation, and implies a perpetual motion machine which is scientifically improbable. Any machine for it to continue being operational, needs sustenance: fuel, new parts and frequent maintenance. If the world is a machine just like what your theory provides, then it needs someone which will continually sustains it. This someone is God, the great provider. You have yet to show me a viable alternative which can sustain the universe:

Heb1:3
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, UPHOLDING THE UNIVERSE BY HIS WORD OF POWER. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

CCC#301
With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. HE NOT ONLY GIVES THEM EXISTENCE, BUT ALSO, AT EVERY MOMENT, UPHOLDS AND SUSTAINS THEM IN BEING.

So God is not only a creator, but a great provider. He provides for his creation. He sustains and upholds them. So your clockwork universe theory is incorrect.

Kahapon sa ganap na 12:15 AM · Gustuhin

Nick Austria ‎Franz Luigi Lugena, this is your logic: we're not yet 100% knowledgable of the origins of the universe, ergo it must be the scripture-based judeo-christian god."

- i don't want to further this discussion anymore for i haven't the time. let's let the comments stand for themselves.

Kahapon sa ganap na 3:42 PM · Gustuhin · 1 tao

Franz Luigi Lugena ‎@Nick Austria, I don’t have problems believing that God exist since it’s the best explanation for the origin of the universe and human life here on earth. It is you who have problems. You just keep on denying God but time and time again, you failed to show proofs or at least a more viable alternative.

may isang minuto na ang nakalipas · Gustuhin