Philippine President Duterte blasts Bible creation story: 'Who is this stupid God?'

GMA Network ^ | 06/22/2018

[dfwgator]

But name another place where this happens even once

Let's just say Duterte won't be making any visits to Poland anytime soon.

[daniel1212]

He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. (Proverbs 10:18)

Infants as not born culpable of sin, and will not be condemned for what they are not responsible for, and their angels behold the face of God.

But the ability to choose is meaningless unless there is something to choose btwn. And in the case of opposites, the choice reveals the heart of the chooser.

Perhaps deceived and damned Duterte would rather God create robots, or not let people choose him as president, but the only wise God says,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Duterte can expect to soon die, and Rome will likely give him a grand funeral and call him one of her sons, but unless he comes to God with a contrite repentant heart, and cast all your faith/dependence upon the risen Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, to save him as a Hell-bound sinner by His sinless shed blood, then he will sadly hear, “ I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:23)

[daniel1212]

Muslims are murdering Athletic priests. Duterte sees fit to criticize priests, Catholicism, Holy Scripture, and God. Does Duterte think he's right? What are the odds?

The odds are very good that without manifest repentance he will be given a ecclesiastical RC funeral, and be called a son of The Church, just as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual RC pols have.

You can attempt your damage control tactics but we have been thru that before.

[imardmd1]

Duterte can expect to soon die, and Rome will likely give him a grand funeral and call him one of her sons, . . .

(Reading between your lines, attributing an intended meaning:) "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar Duterte(?)."

(Shakespeare's quotation of Marc Antony in Julius Caesar, repurposed)

. . . but unless he comes to God with a contrite repentant heart, and cast all your faith/dependence upon the risen Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, to save him as a Hell-bound sinner by His sinless shed blood, then he will sadly hear, “ I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:23)

[daniel1212]

Original sin is a Christian interpretation. Judaism does not have original sin. Since Genesis is part of the Hebrew Scriptures, one could conclude the Christian interpretation is mistaken.

That would not be a logical conclusion any more than the Catholic claim that since they (claim to) gave us the whole Bible then they are the infallible interpreters of it.

In this case both are wrong. While David said that "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," (Psa 51:5) Moses said (regarding judicial punishment) "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin," (Deuteronomy 24:16) And others affirmed likewise. (2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)

And there is a (varying) age of accountability, "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16; Deuteronomy 1:39 )

And Scripture also only teaches that sinners will be judged according to what they did (relative to light and grace given) not others.

However, that man inherits a sinful nature is clear:

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. (Proverbs 29:15)

Therefore while dedication of infants to the service of the Lord is Scriptural, (1 Samuel 1:24-28) infant baptism of them is nowhere manifest despite baptism (which flows from the principal of water of purification) being commanded and exampled, and the critical importance of paedobaptism in Catholicism.

[boatbums]

He needs to take a lesson from Daniel chapter 4. Another ruler learned a valuable lesson:

It happened at once. Nebuchadnezzar was driven out of human company, ate grass like an ox, and was soaked in heaven’s dew. His hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a hawk.
“At the end of the seven years, I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked to heaven. I was given my mind back and I blessed the High God, thanking and glorifying God, who lives forever:
“His sovereign rule lasts and lasts, his kingdom never declines and falls. Life on this earth doesn’t add up to much, but God’s heavenly army keeps everything going. No one can interrupt his work, no one can call his rule into question.

“At the same time that I was given back my mind, I was also given back my majesty and splendor, making my kingdom shine. All the leaders and important people came looking for me. I was reestablished as king in my kingdom and became greater than ever. And that’s why I’m singing—I, Nebuchadnezzar—singing and praising the King of Heaven:

“Everything he does is right, and he does it the right way. He knows how to turn a proud person into a humble man or woman.

[piasa]

There’s a Duturte fan club here too?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Original sin is a Christian interpretation. Judaism does not have original sin. Since Genesis is part of the Hebrew Scriptures, one could conclude the Christian interpretation is mistaken.

Original sin is a Catholic doctrine. Lutheran/Calvinistic Protestants believe in something called "total depravity" that makes original sin seem like a wimp. Meanwhile, the ancient eastern and oriental churches don't believe in original sin at all. They claim it's an invention of the "west."

Incidentally, this is what made me a Noahide. I was reading an Eastern Orthodox booklet a friend had lent me, and the author was simply ranting and railing about the "arch-heretic Augustine" and the "pagan Greek" doctrine of original sin. He said the true doctrine of human nature is taught in the Talmud. Yes, he actually said that! I had been noticing as I went from Protestant to Catholic to Orthodox that with each one human nature was less messed up (an Orthodox priest told me there was no difference between me sitting there talking to him and Adam in the Garden!) What is the purpose of chrstianity or the crucifixion of there was nothing wrong with us to begin with? We already had a religion of morality and ritual, and it certainly didn't need to be replaced by another one. I concluded immediately that what wasn't broke didn't need fixin'.

[21twelve]

Even in His punishment, God is full of grace. Adam and Eve were to live forever on Earth. But, God did not condemn them to eternity without Him.

BTW - Calling God a son of a bitch? I’m thinking his theology is a bit flawed.

[boatbums]

I personally know four men that had that shit pulled on them, including a close relative.

Were those men raped by the women???

[boatbums]

GMTA! ;o)

[boatbums]

What is the purpose of chrstianity or the crucifixion of there was nothing wrong with us to begin with? We already had a religion of morality and ritual, and it certainly didn't need to be replaced by another one. I concluded immediately that what wasn't broke didn't need fixin'.

So, you have never sinned?

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:21-28)

[sparklite2]

The President, a Catholic, said he finds it preposterous that babies should be born with original sin.

---

So do I. So do I.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are some on this thread who evidently think Original Sin is the sin "of" the new baby human. It is not. They think it makes all humans totally depraved. It does not. Rather, it is the sin of our "Original" Parents, Adam and Eve. Hence the term "original."

It does not at imply culpability of personal guilt on the part of any infant, anywhere, at any time.

Duterte seems ignorant of these facts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Since Duterte said two years ago “I believe in one god, Allah,” I doubt he would even permit, via advance directives, a Catholic funeral Mass.

[Mark17]

What REALLY get me is that the Filipino women get themselves pregnant, then irrationally implicate men!

Broadbrush much MDO? I showed your post to my Filipina wife. I can’t repeat what she said, but she does not agree with you. The men are experts at bola bola, and the women generally do not rape the men.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What??? That makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not an unfair broadbrush accusation, but simply a biological reality, that men are involved in every pregnancy. You can't get pregnant without the male input. I very much doubt your wife would disagree with that.

But---OMG --- waitaminnit. Is it possible you thought that this sentence

"What REALLY get me is that the Filipino women get themselves pregnant, then irrationally implicate men!"

... was to be taken literally?

((((Sigh.)))

It's meant as mockery of the dumb idea that with reference to pregnancy, the man is a Dindu Nuffin.

[Zionist Conspirator]

So, you have never sinned?

Where in the flippin' blazes did you get the idea that I was saying I never sinned??? One of my main problems with the ancient churches during my search was that they didn't seem to think we were that messed up. Catholicism (not I) says that human nature was merely "wounded" by original sin (I grew up with Innate Total Depravity!). I explicitly said that since historical chrstianity acknowledged the teachings on human nature of the Talmud why in the name of all that's reasonable invent a new religion when there already was one?

Until Martin Luther chrstians lived their entire lives walking a tightrope over hell. There was no "assurance of salvation," no "eternal security," or any such thing. I feel like I'm telling a little kid there's no Santa Claus when I point out that Protestantism did not exist in the ancient chrstian world. All of ancient chrstianity--from Rome to Persia to India to Ethiopia--is about liturgies, sacraments, moral codes, and monasticism. The idea that Constantine is responsible for all that is ludicrous.

The only version of chrstianity that makes sense is inauthentic and ahistorical. Actual historic chrstianity replaced the Torah's morality and ritual with another morality and ritual, then threw a crucifixion on top of it and screamed about how the Jews had committed "the greatest crime in history" (I always thought he was vicariously eternally damned by G-d in our place, but this is another "invention").

Finally (and I know this is useless since you refuse to even think about it), the two quotes you offer are a perfect example of chrstian error on this subject. You believe they are from "the same identical bible" but they most assuredly are not. Hebrews says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Leviticus does not say that. It says that it is forbidden to eat blood because when an offering is made it is the blood (rather than the other parts) of the animal that makes atonement. This is not the same thing as saying "without blood there is no forgiveness of sin." You probably won't see it because you begin with an a priori belief in the "new testament." If you did not have that a prior belief you would see the difference.

I have devoted years on this forum to defending Fundamentalist Protestants and refuting their critics. I was broken hearted to learn the truth, but it's still the truth. Unless someone invents a time machine so they can go back and insert Protestantism into chrstianity's beginnings the real thing will be what it always was until 1517.

[knarf]

Un frikkin’ believable !

[Zionist Conspirator]

There are some on this thread who evidently think Original Sin is the sin "of" the new baby human. It is not. They think it makes all humans totally depraved. It does not. Rather, it is the sin of our "Original" Parents, Adam and Eve. Hence the term "original."

Yes, "original sin" really is quite wimpy and disappointing compared to innate total depravity. But the Catholic Church had to have an excuse to "replace" the previously-existing G-d authored religion with something else. Total depravity implies the futility of all human action and effort. So they came up with something that fit their needs just right: man had fallen enough that the already existing G-d authored religion couldn't save him, but the new one would.

Given the choice between a Biblical and a post-Biblical moral code/ceremonial, I choose the Biblical.