u/Glad_Contest1999

The Romans were the most obsessive recordkeepers in ancient world. They documented taxes, troop movements, provincial disputes, weather, eclipses, everything.

Rome ran on paperwork. Governors sent dispatches. Historians wrote massive volume accounts covering everything from military campaigns to strange customs in conquered territories. Rome kept a close eye on Judea which had a history of uprisings, prophets, messianic movements, the kind of unrest that made Roman administrators nervous.

Cornelius Tacitus, 56 AD, he rose through the highest levels of Roman society, served as senator, held the office of consul, and later governed the Roman province of Asia. Tacitus was not a minor writer but rather one of the most respected historians the empire ever produced.

Tacitus wrote a massive work called The Annals, covering Roman history from death of Augustus through the end of Nero's reign. In it he describes the great fire of Rome in July of 64 AD. The fire burned for 6 days and destroyed much of the city. Rumors spread that Nero himself had ordered it set, that he watched it burn while playing music. In other words, important events were recorded by this respected historian.

Now let us first examine Matthew 27: 45 onwards on Jesus' execution. From noon until 3pm, darkness came all over the land. At that moment, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split, AND THE TOMBS BROKE OPEN AND THE BODIES OF MANY HOLY PEOPLE WHO HAD DIED WERE RAISED TO LIFE. THEY CAME OUT OF THE TOMBS AND WENT INTO THE HOLY CITY AND APPEARED TO MANY PEOPLE.

In 15:44 of The Annals, a part of it reads: "The originator of this name, Christus, had been executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly/pernicious superstition, suppressed for the moment, broke out again—not only throughout Judea, the source of this evil, but also throughout Rome, where everything horrible and shameful from every part of the world finds its center and becomes popular."

This is the famous Tacitus reference identifying Christus, his execution under Pontius Pilate, and the reign of Tiberius.

Also note that Tacitus calls Christianity “exitiabilis superstitio”—more accurately “pernicious/destructive superstition”, rather than “mischievous superstition.”

Right there Tacitus stops to explain. But notice what he doesnt say. No miracles, no resurrection, no dead rising from their tombs and walking through Jerusalem, no earth shaking, no sky going dark. A spectacular event where the dead people rose from their grave and walked through jerusalem would not have been forgotten to be written down by one of the most greatest recordkeeper of ancient rome. In other words, about the miracles, the resurrection and all other superstitions, none was recorded by history.

Instead Tacitus in his work described the whole thing as a straightforward and pure judicial matter. A Roman governor doing his job in a difficult province. A man was tried. A man was executed. The movement paused, then it didnt stay dead. That's the Roman report, a senator's footnote in the history of the empire. No angels, no miracles, just a governor solving a problem on a Friday afternoon.

Tacitus says Christ suffered what the Latin calls the extreme penalty. That phrase refers specifically to crucifixion. And crucifixion in the Roman world wasnt a general purpose punishment. Rome had plenty of ways to kill people, beheading for citizens, strangulation, the arena. Crucifixion was reserved. It was specific. It was used for political crimes, sedition, rebellion against Rome, slave revolts, piracy. It was the punishment that said publicly and visually "DO NOT CHALLENGE CAESAR". After crucifixion, the body was often left up for days unti it rots, not as justice, but an advertisment not to challenge caesar.

Let us examine how the gospel framed this. Jesus is tried before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious council, on a charge of blasphemy. He claims to be the son of God. The High Priest tears his robe in horror. The council condemns him. They hand him over to Pilate for the Roman punishment.

In Johns gospel, Pilate signed and prepared and fastened above the cross. It reads "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".

"KING OF THE JEWS". Think about what that charge really is. Thats not a religious accusation but rather a political accusation. In the Roman Empire, claiming kingship without Rome's appointment was treason. The Latin term is Crimen Laece Majestatis, an offense against the majesty of the emperor, one of the most serious charges on the books. You do not claim to be a king in a Roman province and walk away with it.

Crucifixion was Rome's supreme penalty, it's most public and visual deterrent. Crucifixion was always about politics. It was always about power. The cross wasnt a theological statement. It was a billboard with a strong message "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CHALLENGE CAESAR".

The gospel tells you that Jesus died for your sins. The Roman record tells you Jesus died for challenging Roman authority. The Roman governor sitting in judgment that day wasnt looking at a sacrifice for the sins of the world. He was looking at a political problem on a Friday afternoon. And he solved it the way Rome always solved political problems with wood and nails and a sign.

Had you been standing in Jerusalem that day where the dead rose from their grave and walked through Jerusalem and appeared to many, youd remember it for the rest of your life. Youd tell your children, your childrens children. It would be one of the most documented events in the ancient world. Governors would have written to Rome about it. Historians would have devoted whole chapters to it. The Romans garrison stationed in the city would have filed reports because dead people walking through the streets is not something a military occupation quietly overlooks.

And yet, Tacitus writing about this exact period mentions none of it. No earthquake, no darkness, no risen dead.

Two versions. The gospel. The History. Superstition or Reality. Pick your own because you are FREE.

May isang ditapak dito na exiter daw ng kulto ni bes. Eto ngayon nagpost ako ng observation ko about Pauline Christianity / Christology. Nagcomment sya to the effect of saying na tigilan ko daw ang paghahasik ng "Hidwang Pananampalataya".

Gusto ko lang po iparating sayo ditapak na ibig ba sabihin kaya mo nahahatulan na hidwa ang ibang pananampalataya ay dahil yung belief mo ngayon ay iyan na ang totoo? Siguradong sigurado ka ba jan? O ang katotohanan sa buhay na ito ay walang sinuman ang may monopolya sa truth at hanggan ngayon tinutuklas ng tao ang katotohanan na yan? Ako ay nagsasalita sa isang sociological na pananaw hindi theological.

Sa 4000 na paniniwala at libo libong dios na sinasamba ng tao across history, u mean yung sayo ulit ngayon ang totoo na naman? Galing na tayo lahat sa ganyang pananaw, naloko ka, naloko ako, naloko tayong lahat. Sabi mo nakalaya ka na sa kulto pero ang tindi mo pa din humatol. May pa hidwa hidwa ka pang nalalaman.

Kung babalikan mo yung post wala ako sinabing masama laban kay Pablo kundi analysis iyon ng history at logical possibilities ng nangyari, isang pananaw yun ng history na kung anu ang malamang na nangyari. Pero sumama loob mo ang hatol mo agad hidwa eka.

May sumasamba kay Allah, malaya sila, may sumasamba kay Odin, kay Zeus, kay Jupiter, kay Ra, ang bawat isa sa 8.3 bilyon tao sa mundo may kalayaan sa belief. Naniniwala ka kay Pablo, ok yan. Pero ang foul jan, yung hanggan ngayon may paghatol ka na ito eka hidwa. Kasi lalabas jan hawak mo na naman ang katotohanan. Nasa katotohanan ka ulit kagaya lang ng dati. Ganun ulit, gaya ulit kay bes, paulit ulit lang. Basta ibang paniniwala, ekis agad yan.Hidwa yan.

Maaaring allergic ka sa isang Agnosticong kagaya ko o sa isang Atheistang kagaya ng ilan. Pero in simpler terms, hanggan hindi ka marunong kumilala, kahit wag na ang pagrespeto, kundi kumilala man lang ng pananaw ng iba, hinding hindi ka pa din nakalaya sa kulto, may kulto pa din jan sa ulo mo, at hanggan ngayon may laway ka pa din ni bes.

Another thing, remember that this is a SECULAR sub, not a sole CHRISTIAN sub.

Peace.

If Acts says that the apostles, including Matthew and John, personally witnessed Jesus’ ascension, why did neither Matthew nor John mention such a spectacular event in their own Gospels?

Acts 1:9 — “And when he had said these things, while they were looking, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.”

"They" refers to the apostles, nakatingin daw ang mga Apostles kabilang doon si Matthew at John nanduon nakatanaw habang umaakyat sa langit. Kagila gilalas na tagpo noh.

Ngayon punta tayo sa gospel ni Matthew at John na mga eyewitnesses eka ng Ascension. Pansin mo ba na pareho silang 2 na mga eyewitnesses daw pero walang binanggit about Ascension, sayang napakaimportanteng tagpo pa naman isang kagila gilalas pa naman na tagpo very dramatic dahil farewell iyon ng guro nila, pero waley ndi man nila nabanggit. Baka nakalimutan lang nila siguro isulat sabi ng Apologetic. 😥

Obserbasyon lang po ito, baka may magalit na naman.😂✌️✌️✌️

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.

Pansinin mo halos lahat ng lider relihion na gamit ang Pauline theology na lingguhang abuluyan na ndi naman tinuro ni kristo, eh nagsiyaman karamihan ang lider.

Yung theological design ng Pauline Christianity ay hindi maghihirap ang lider na taliwas sa mga napagdaanan ni kristo at kanyang mga alagad.

Talasan mo lang pag iimbestiga sa likod ng binabasa mo, marami ng articles ngayon at mga aklat na nagrecord ng mga nangyari sa kasaysayan ng binabasa mo para mahimasmasan ka.

Baka sakali mabasa mo yung pulitika sa likod nyan at kung papaano yan ginamit ng napakalas na emperyo romano. Yung panahon at taon ng pagkasulat ng mga aklat at kung ano ang political environment noon, yun ang dapat na alamin mo kung paano yan ginamit as institutional control.

2000 taon mahigit na naghihintay ka pa din.

May umakyat ba talaga sa langit ng laman at buto? Hanapin mo ung talata na iyon at imbestigahan mo.

Hindi kpb pagod sa supernaturals and superstitions, baka pwede pagtuunan mo naman ang realidad.

Kausap ko yung panatikong kapatid na 3 taon ng nag aantay na mabigyan sha ng trabaho ng kakulto nya pero waley pa din hanggan ngayon.

Tanong ko: Halimbawa si Manalo magsabi sa MCGI na nakakita sya ng pangitain ni kristo na kasama si beshy, at sabihin ngayon ni Manalo na sugo nga si beshy, at dahil sa pangitain na iyon, papamunuan ni manalo ang mcgi at isusulong nya ang turo ni beshy, payag ka ba duon?

Sagot ni fanatic: Bakit kailangan si Manalo ang mamuno eh nandito buhay na buhay ang mga nakasama ni bro. Eli na makakapagturo ng mga iniaral ni br eli galing kay Kristo? Hindi tama yan brod, sagot nya sakin.

Sagot ko: Eh bakit kay Pablo naniwala ka, numero unong mang uusig sa iglesia, pumatay ng mga kristyano, hindi na kasama sa laman si kristo, nagkwento lang ng pangitain kay kristo habang naglalakad sa damasco pero sya pa ang naging chief architect ng Kristyanismo kahit na buhay na buhay ang mga alagad na nakasama ni Kristo sa laman. Bakit si Pablo pwede, bakit pag si Manalo hindi pwede? Napaisip sya bigla😂😂

(Yan ang sitwasyon noon kaya sa obserbasyon ng mga scholar, ininterpret ni pablo si kristo. Kaya ang resulta may mga aral si pablo hindi naman utos ni kristo. Yun sa buhok walang ganyan utos si kristo, yun sa pagkain sabi ni kristo itatae mo lang yan, walang lingguhang abuluyan si kristo.....kay pablo lahat yan) Kaya dapat ang tawag jan Iglesia ni Pablo!)

In other words, sa pagbabasa mo huwag mo kalimutan basahin ang pulitika sa likod ng binabasa mo at kasaysayan kung paano nabuo at pinili ang mga aklat na binabasa mo.

Baha ka lang,mcgi kami...Ang sabi ng panatiko kong ka local na babyahe pa central.... Tanga gago tarantado inutil ang sabi naman ni beshy..

Si Deynyels na nagtuturo sayo na huwag umasa sa tao kundi ilagak ang buong pag asa at tiwala sa Dios, ay siya ring tao na umaasa sa yo na tao na magbibigay sa kanya ng lingguhang abuloy.

Be critical.

Why Christianity Might Be the Most Genius "Unlosable Game" Ever Designed.

Christianity is easily one of the smartest, most airtight belief systems ever designed—and here is why.

Have you ever noticed how some systems are literally built so they can never be proven wrong or record a single failure?

The "No Ex-Christian" Paradox.

Imagine if you were born into a Muslim family, taught Islam, grew up in Islam, got married in Islam, went on the Pilgrimage to Mecca, observed and believed everything that makes a person a Muslim, and then one day you figure out it isn't for you. You realize what’s in the text doesn't align with reality and is 100% man-made.

If you walk away, people would simply acknowledge reality: You are an Ex-Muslim. Simple. You moved on.

But what if you were a Christian who met every single criterion that defines a Christian—believing, praying, paying tithes, speaking in tongues, winning souls for 30 years—and you leave because you discovered the deceit in it?

Christians will look you dead in the eye and say: "There is no such thing as an Ex-Christian."

Wait, what?! 💀

If you ask what makes them say this, they’ll quickly quote 1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us..."

Translation? Christians define a true believer only as someone who endures to the very end. If you leave, your entire past is retroactively rewritten as "fake." You were never a real believer in the first place!

So in their eyes, there's nothing like "I used to be a Christian". No matter how convinced and devoted you were, you were just a demon wandering in their midst. Because a true believer should be st*p*d and not leave even when the obvious is right before his eyes..

1. Turning Every Failure into a Victory 🎲.

That is one truly unique thing about Christianity: they find a way to turn every single failure into a success.

Look at how the narrative shifts depending on what happens:

* If you join the faith today:

👉 "Thank God, Jesus is winning souls!"

* If you leave the faith today:

👉 "Praise God, the Bible prophesied many will fall away in the last days!"

They’ll cite 1 Timothy 4:1: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith..."

Now, if you’re being rational, you have to ask: How is leaving a religion a prophecy fulfillment?

People have been switching religions, breaking away from faiths, and changing their minds long before Christianity or Judaism were even invented! Do you genuinely think ancient traditions like Hinduism never knew people would break away from their faith before Western theology came along?

Human beings changing their minds is standard human behavior. But in Christianity, a completely normal human decision is framed as "proof that the Bible is coming true."

2. The Prayer Trap: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose 🤲.

In the Bible, Jesus explicitly claims in John 14:14: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Now let’s test how this works in practice:

* Scenario A: You study hard for an exam, pray to Jesus to help you pass, and you pass.

👉 "Jesus has done it again! Praise the Lord!" 🙌

* Scenario B: Believers pray with all their heart for a severely ill man. Nothing happens, he passes on.

👉 "Well, 'No' is an answer too! God knows best!"🤷‍♂️

So whatever the case may be, Christianity never records a failure. If the prayer works, Jesus did it. If the prayer fails, "No" was the divine answer. Every loss is repackaged as a win.

3. The "Un-Marryable" Marriage Logic 💍.

To see how wild this logic is, apply it to a real-world relationship: "If a medicine cures you, the medicine works. If the medicine doesn't cure you, you didn't actually swallow it."

Imagine you are married to someone named Mary. You love her, sign the papers, build a life together, and stay married for 20 years. Eventually, Mary turns out to be oppressive, toxic, and tries to ruin your life.

To save yourself, you get a divorce and walk away. In the real world, Mary is your ex-wife.

But under Christian theological logic, there is no such thing as an ex-wife!

"Mary was NEVER your wife! Because if you were a TRUE spouse, you would have endured until the man/woman finishes you! The fact that you walked away proves you never in the marriage in the first place!" 💀

You redefine the condition so that leaving retroactively cancels everything you did before. You weren't a spouse who left a toxic situation; you were a "fake spouse" the whole time!

You have to hand it to the architects of this theology—it is absolute genius.

* You can’t join without proving their victory.

* You can’t leave without fulfilling their prophecy.

* You can’t fail a prayer without proving their wisdom.

It is an airtight psychological bubble where Christianity never takes a Loss.

Are more young Filipinos walking away from religion? (An article from radarPH.)

The Philippines remains one of the world’s most religious countries, but a growing body of research suggests that a small yet increasing number of young Filipinos are identifying as atheists, agnostics, or having no religion.

While no official government agency tracks the number of atheists specifically, data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the Pew Research Center, the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), and local academic studies all point to the same trend: non-belief is growing, particularly among urban youth and young professionals.

The PSA’s 2020 Census of Population and Housing recorded 43,931 Filipinos—or about 0.04% of the population—as having no religious affiliation. However, because the census does not include separate categories for atheists or agnostics, researchers say the official figure likely understates the size of the country’s non-believing population.

A 2024 study in Psychology and Education journal estimate that around 1% of Filipinos—or roughly 1.1 million people—identify as non-believers. The studies also found that this growth is concentrated among younger Filipinos, particularly college students and young professionals.

Researchers attribute the shift partly to greater internet access, which has made discussions about religion, skepticism, and secularism more accessible while allowing non-religious Filipinos to connect through online communities.

The founding of the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS) in 2011 is also viewed by scholars as a milestone in the country’s growing secular movement, providing a community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers.

Despite these developments, the Philippines remains overwhelmingly religious. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 99% of Filipino adults still believe in God, while data from the International Social Survey Programme consistently rank Filipinos among the people with the strongest certainty in God’s existence worldwide.

Government figures likewise show that Roman Catholics continue to comprise the vast majority of the population, although their share declined from 79.5% in 2015 to 78.8% in 2020, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority.

The trend contrasts sharply with developments elsewhere. In its report "How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020," the Pew Research Center found that people with no religious affiliation rose by 270 million, reaching 1.9 billion. It accounted for 24.2% of the world’s population, making them the fourth-largest demographic group after Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.

Although the evidence points to a gradual increase in the number of Filipino non-believers, researchers emphasize that they remain a very small minority. For the foreseeable future, faith continues to be a defining characteristic of Philippine society, even as more young Filipinos appear to be questioning organized religion.

(✍️: Top Dagohoy)

#radarPHLifestyle #radarPH

How ironic na ang mga relihion itinuturo na "Mas madali pang makapasok ang isang kamelyo sa butas ng karayom kaysa makapasok sa kaharian ng Diyos ang isang mayaman." Pero pansinin mo karamihan sa mga Pastor pastoran nila mayayaman...Hahaha...mga scam kasi...follow the footsteps of christ daw wag lang yung manatiling mahirap..Hahaha...Mga ipokrito talaga...

Layas na kayo jan sa mga kulto na yan, redeem yourselves.

Remember Albert Einstein, the 12 yr old boy who sings hymns to God on his way to school? This is a calm assessment of a man who spent his entire life studying the structure of reality, who formulated the equations that governed light, mapped the curvature of spacetime, who discovered that mass and energy are equivalent, that the universe is expanding, that reality is stranger and more beautiful than any ancient text could imagine.

Einstein's rupture centered on the concept of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs. A deity who stops the sun in the sky for Joshua. A deity who parts the seas for Moses. A deity who cares about specific human dietary laws.

To Einstein, this concept didnt fit with the elegant laws of physics. He said, I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of nature, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

A part of the letter famously known as the "God Letter" addressed to philosopher Eric Gutkin, who sold at 2.9 Million dollars at Christies in 2018 states:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses. The Bible a collection of honorable but still rather primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can for me change anything about this".

xxxxx

To all former ADD MCGI members who exited because of questioning the doctrines, regardless of what belief we may end up with, i just would like to say that you are on the right track just like the greatest minds in history to the likes of Einstein and Spinoza who unceasingly questioned everything, and later turned out to have vastly contributed to the world's knowledge.

That while KD and his puppets posit that rejecting the doctrines is an act of arrogance, an excuse to live in rebellion, painting us skeptics as a villain who hates God and someone who wants sin without consequences. We however know that all those are false claims. We know ourselves better, better than KD. He is just portraying us that way because we are a threat to the Soriano-Razon religious commerce.

I am not in any manner convincing you to doubt the bible, neither to believe in Einsteins or Spinozas concept of God who does not intervene in human affairs, I respect every belief each one of us holds after exiting, but let us all take this opportunity to study, reflect, and consider other schools of thought about the concept of God as there is more than the god of ADD MCGI.

Love to all exiters!!

Corinthians 7:18

"May tinawag bang hindi tuli? Huwag na siyang magpatuli."

​

Ito express provision tungkol sa pagtutuli ng mga hentil na sinabi ni pablo wag ng magpatuli...bakit yung mga batang lalake na KNC ng ADD MCGI ay pinapatuli pa?

​

Yung sa buhok naman ng babae na vague ang provision kahigpit naman ng panindigan ng add na bawal pagupit.

​

Dapat sundin yan ng ADD MCGI at dapat yung mga susunod na henerasyon na mga lalake ng ADD MCGI ay dapat puro supot na yan dapat kc kayo may sabi sundin si pablo bilang apostol sa mga hentil.

​

O cherry picking na naman sa utos? Eto letra por letra Huwag ng magpatuli ayaw sundin, yun sa buhok na walang letra por letra ay pinapatupad naman. Ano na koya.

Happy Father's day po sa lahat ng tatay except kay Abraham na handang patayin ang anak nyang si Isaac.

Shout out sa servant namin sa LBMR, Bago ako nag exit ng 2022 tinanong ko yung servant namin.

​

"Papaano po kaya nabuhay yung mga halaman at papano nag photosynthesize yung mga halaman na nilikha sa ikatlong araw eh ang araw ay nilikha lamang ng Dios sa ika apat na araw at ang alam ko na paliwanag ni eli boy ay ang isang araw dw sa creation ay hindi 24 hours kundi pwedeng maraming taon ang isang araw na yaon. Ang tanong ko in short, papano nabuhay ung mga halaman ng wala pang haring araw.

​

Ang sabi ko kay servant gusto ko itanong yan kay koya dahil madami kc ako nakalista na mga gumugulo sa isip ko.

​

Pero parang hindi mo nagustuhan tanong ko sabi mo sakin kung sinusubok ko ba si koya mo na imbes na magduda ako ay magtiwala na lang at mapanatag.

​

Iba ibang klase ng tao tayo, ako may kakulitan talaga ako at interesado ako na malaman ang maraming bagay.

​

Sabi mo pa hanapin ko nalang sa youtube ang sagot jan ni bes eh pano mahahanap eh tinake down nio karamihan ng pagtuturo ni bes.

​

May nakaka alam po ba dito kung ano ang sagot jan ni bes?

​

​