• mary magdalene and jesus christ indeed had a romantic and sexual relationship. i don't think that i have the right to expound and prove this one and the claims in the book for that matter. you better check the book because Licauco(the author) have tons of credible sources so i wasn't brave enough to scream "you bastard, you're lying!!die and go to hell!!" my reaction:so what. i don't really get the point if Christ had a girlfriend, let it be so. does having a girlfriend degrade his "divinity"?and, if you had a bf/gf, would you hate yourself?!would you stop having faith in yourself because you are in love?!! the point here is that christ, as somebody spiritually divine and superior, should possess things far greater than us, the "ordinary" sinners. but heck, a girlfriend?everybody has girlfriends, even girls have girlfriends.that is where the contradiction begins.wow, im losing my intelligence(!!)sleepiness is a disease of thinking...
• the bible was edited and expurgated for the interests of the Catholic (or Christian)church. this is your greatest religious nightmare(if you understand it). what if even the basis of your faith, the supposed collection of the holy words of God, is impure, a sanctity manipulated and raped by a group of spiritually pervert, socially biased individuals? will all your faith be crumbled because the foundations are nothing but fallacies?...hey that's an overstatement! actually, Licauco said that the translation of the bible to the then modern languages (like Latin from greek,hebrew,bedouin or something) was altered and not totally faithful to the meaning in order to favor the teachings of the Christian church. (baruch spinoza also stated that the bible was written not to state the greatness of its god, but to attract as many followers as possible) so, whenever we read the bible, we will never know if what we are reading are actually true or just clever manipulations.hey, im being biased!!
• jesus christ is a reincarnation of past biblical figures like Adam, Abraham, Isaac,etc. this is one of the "so what" topics raised in the book. i don't get it why people make a big deal out of the petty imperfections of Christ, so what if he has flaws, what counts in the end is whether we believe amidst everything or not(hey, i don't go to church...regularly.wahahah) if you want this thing to be elaborated, don't count on me to explain to you verbatim because i am too sleepy for such a tedious, tedious task.
• jesus christ is copied from the gos of other ancient religions. this is the most "shocking" claim of the book.well, it was actually taken from a research of this two british dudes i didn't bother knowing. according to this *wapoosh* claim, the concept of jesus christ is not original, but merely a copy. they point out that there are striking similarities among jesus, osiris from egypt,dionysius from what-was-that, mithras from my-mind-is-dead and adonis from persia. even if i was not able to elaborate everything, i am still presenting this things according to fact and not on my own interests.(this book was borrowed from me my carmela just 8 hours ago)the similarities?they were born on dec 25, had a mortal mother, son of god, rose from the dead on the 3rd day to ascend into heaven, comemorated by a feast of bread and wine and other things that i have unconsciously forgotten.shocking isn't it.i think they are true, the issue here is our interpretations on such facts?what will the image of christ become?what is the stand of our faith?shall we still believe or be the greatest of skeptics because we have been fooled for almost 2000 years?blablabla.take me seriously,please
• what is the bullet for?those are the only things i can remember!!

iii.and the point is?

the point, my dear blog readers is: (the hushed, unbiased version, for religious fanatics) are these the kind of facts that can crumble our very beliefs?

(the morbid version, the "realest" "truest" thing i could say about this matter) the fact that these kinds of claims surfaced is already enough for us to doubt the credibility of the Catholic Church.

elaboration of a sleepy-head: i am not opposing the concept of the existence of god; i believe in god, no matter what. but, this god is not the god the Catholic church has been preaching, a punishing, jealous, strict, condemning god.but a great being beyond comprehension, an entity that signalled the beginning of the existence of everything, a god full of love and compassion(oohh religiously cheesy). although some claim that god is a force(plato) or the first motion, or a being oblivious due to his blissful perfection(aristotle), i put faith in him. people, this is one of the few things i fail to explain but i incessantly value. just because some things are unexplainable doesn't mean they are not true. just because some things are not yet proven doesn't mean they are false. that is basically my belief, that explanation from the human thought is not the core basis for the authenticity of something. man has tried to explain the concept of god with so many complexities and technicalities, terminologies and jargon, but these were just made to cover up the fact that the human mind is not capable of understanding his being. we are only capable of admiring him, or believeing him. i don't know, honestly. i have yet to discover everything. i feel i still lack the wisdom to satisfy myself with an answer. i don't know. i don't know.or perhaps, i'm just sleepy..what, really?i have some answers, but shit, im sleepy.

iii.go on and curse me

if you think i am a demonic teenage thinker, i pity you. because you have closed your mind in the false belief that what you have now is the truth. is your truth the universal truth, that is my question. why did you close your mind and satisfy yourself with those beliefs?was it because you are so sure of them, was it because you have analyzed them and found them without flaws? or was it because you don't want to bother yourself with doubting and thinking, because you prefer the convenience of lying on the comforts of your religion while the whole world is thinking? was it because you find considering other beliefs inconvenient? was it because you are afraid that what you believe in may be challenged?was it because you feel that your faith is too weak that even the mildest blow might crumble it? was it because you don't want to be different? was it because you stick to that faith because most people are sticking up to that to?was it because of opposition?was it because you are sure?or, was it because you don't bother, because you don't value your belief enough for you to seek the truth behind it?

if you have the most confident answers to all of those questions, with accompanying justifications based on your analytical thinking, critique and intellectual judgment, and when you have considered every aspect of our life, every field of the universal plane and every branch of human knowledge and thinking in the thorough and systematic formulation of your answers, take a good breath and curse me.

P.S.

sorry for the typos, i am too lazy and sleepy to edit them. and, before you make any conclusions i suggest(not compel) that you buy the book. uii endorsement.you have the will.

"When thinking begins with a conclusion, thinking stops."-Jidda Krishnamurti

iii. i'm adding something

i cannot find the right words to start this chapter. i'm supposed to finish this post with the *wattakowt* quotation of an indian philosopher you never bothered knowing, j.krishnamurti. if you feel so dumb because you don't know him/her, don't because i don't know him/her either, heck i don't even know if he/she is a guy or a girl, i am stupid.what is stupid?i believe i had already answered that. what is the basis of stupidity anyway?because you cannot measure up to what is expected of you by society, then you are stupid? because you failed, then you are stupid?because you lost everything, then you are stupid? stupid is a word that hushes down the referrence to our imperfection. i am stupid because i am too imperfect to choose to be not stupid. i f i am perfect then i could have been capable of isolating myself from the concept of stupidity. but i am imperfect, then i have the right to be stupid, everybody is imperfect, and they don't have the right to call me stupid.calling me stupid will single me out as the imperfect one, which is not correct because evrybody is imperfect, that is in general. but i can be the stupid one of the situation, perhaps because i chose to be imperfect during the occurence of this specific situation. then i can be referred to as the "stupid one of the situation"more appropriately than stupid alone because it is a politically correct way of calling me.it follows every principle of stupidity i have mentioned.i'm so stupid to talk. about stupidity

ISANG ANEKDOTANG KAPUPULUTAN NG ARAL NG MGA KABATAAN

Si dodi damulag at si babi baboy

dodi: babi, this is the alphabet...A..B.. babi, recite the alphabet.

babi: oink, oink.

dodi: babi, when i ask what your name is, say "my name is chika babi". what is your name?

babi: oink, oink.

dodi: babi, when i say hi you say hello, when i say hello you say hi. hi!

babi:oink, oink.

dodi: hello!

babi:oink, oink.

dodi: babi, william harvey discovered the circulation of blood. babi, who discovered the circulation of blood?

babi:oin, oink.

dodi: babi, the value of i is the square root of negative one. babi, what is the value of i?

babi:oink, oink.

dodi: leche kang baboy ka. akala ko kaya kitang turuan. gusto lang naman kitang gisingin sa kamangmangan ng kahayupan mo. binigyan kita ng dunong para lumaya ka sa kahangalan ng kababuyan mong iyan. ngayon, kung ayaw mong makinig o nakikinig ka pero ayaw mo lang intindihin dahil naniniwala ka na ang baboy ay baboy lang, ngumunguya, lumalamon at tumatae buong buhay, pwes, wala akong magagawa, "magpakababoy ka na lang".

mga bata, ang aral ng kwento ay:

hindi mo pwedeng mabigyan ng edukasyon ang isang baboy na nagpapakababoy.(you can never educate a pig that acts like a pig)

ako ang gumawa niyan, do not use without permission from the author.copyright protected (sa utak).

Labels: Religious Beliefs