PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: dorian_gray on Feb 19, 2010 at 09:11 AM
-
Mods, please merge this thread if there is already an existing one.
It is just strange that we have this in the Philippine constitution and yet it is not being followed. One of the major reasons why I think this should be enforced is
Taxation-
I think it is unfair for everyone to work so hard in her profession and yet some people are exempt from doing so.
I have a noble job as a teacher and I am very glad to pay my taxes but it makes me sad that others don't.
-
Kaya nga maraming pastor/minister/priest na mas pinili nila ang ganitong vocation kasi they dont need to pay their taxes... padamihin mo lang ang members mo... marami nang income ang church mo ang being a priest/pastor/minister you have all the authority saan mo gagamitin ang mga pera.
Sa Pilipinas, there are 4 ways to get rich.
1. build a church
2. magnakaw (includes corruption)
3. build your own business
4. be successful in your work
additional: if you believe in riches trough chance (easy money)
5. manalo sa lotto
-
they get tax breaks anywhere else in the world that have more secular societies than the Philippines
besides, the Catholic Church is the largest charity organization in the world. charity organizations are tax exempt as well. so its not just the religious side
-
hindi lang naman dapat titingnan ang church and state sepaation in term of taxes...
pati sa pamamalakad.... at sa pagdidikta sa takbo ng politika....
- rally
- election (wala dapat block voting) every church leaders must teach their members to choose their own candidate
-
The representatives of the different churches/religions here in pinas are too meddlesome. Nakalimutan na talaga nila kung ano ba talaga ang purpose ng vocation nila.
Church being a charity institution? I seldom see them helping out the poor even in their own community.
Picture this: In our province, there is a place we call the Archbishop's Palace which is actually a mansion. I was able to see it from the inside once when I attended a wedding ceremony conducted there. It is a very lavished place with all the modern comforts known to man. Outside this mansion, there are around 20-30 families living in shanties resting on the walls of its fence. It's been years but the informal settlers are still there. While the mansion had been renovated a couple of times and the garage is now overflowing with luxury cars.
I am not saying that this is a representation of the whole but as long as its there, it can't help but remind me of its failure to live up to its real purpose.
-
The representatives of the different churches/religions here in pinas are too meddlesome. Nakalimutan na talaga nila kung ano ba talaga ang purpose ng vocation nila.
they are not just meddling... they also join the politics and at the same leader of their church.
every church member (especially their leader) must follow all the government policy.
and a political leader must not act as if he/she owns the church... he/she must behave as regular member of the church.
inside the church the leader is the priest/pastor/minister
outside the church the leader is government officials.
what religion ang kadalasang nakikialam sa isyo ng ating bansa?
-
Tapos yung mga rape, pedophilia at sexual harassment charges laban sa mga pari, dinededma pa.
Baka kasi siguro mapunta sa impyerno yung magkakaso sa mga paring ito.
-
Tapos yung mga rape, pedophilia at sexual harassment charges laban sa mga pari, dinededma pa.
Baka kasi siguro mapunta sa impyerno yung magkakaso sa mga paring ito.
the vatican is too powerful for them...
-
the vatican is too powerful for them...
as if may power ang Vatican sa Pilipinas
it doesn't even have its own army
-
Tapos yung mga rape, pedophilia at sexual harassment charges laban sa mga pari, dinededma pa.
Baka kasi siguro mapunta sa impyerno yung magkakaso sa mga paring ito.
sino ang nag-de-deadma? can you substantiate your claim? otherwise, you're just making something up in an effort to discredit an institution you are personally against
-
as if may power ang Vatican sa Pilipinas
it doesn't even have its own army
power doesnt always involve an army...
in general sense... Vatican is too powerful... very influential...
-
as if may power ang Vatican sa Pilipinas
it doesn't even have its own army
Whatever the Vatican lobbies for in the Philippines, they will usually get it.
besides, the Catholic Church is the largest charity organization in the world.
Do we have figures to support this?
-
power doesnt always involve an army...
in general sense... Vatican is too powerful... very influential...
can you substantiate this claim? otherwise this is only your personal opinion
i don't see any kind of influence the Vatican has outside of Catholics. heck, if they're that influential with Catholics, none will be sinning and going against the teachings of the Church
if the Vatican is powerful, why can't they set-up a legal and free church in China?
if the Vatican is powerful, why are there so many countries with abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, etc?
-
Whatever the Vatican lobbies for in the Philippines, they will usually get it.
can you substantiate this?
because anyone who understands how the hierarchy of the Church works would know that this is not true
Do we have figures to support this?
http://www.zenit.org/article-22024?l=english
a vast majority of Charities in the world are religious based. and the biggest among them are Catholic charities, like Caritas
-
can you substantiate this claim? otherwise this is only your personal opinion
i don't see any kind of influence the Vatican has outside of Catholics. heck, if they're that influential with Catholics, none will be sinning and going against the teachings of the Church
if the Vatican is powerful, why can't they set-up a legal and free church in China?
if the Vatican is powerful, why are there so many countries with abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, etc?
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/15-Nov-2006.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican46.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican20.htm
http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_vatican_in_world_politics_chpt_3.html
still wondering why vatican cannot setup a free church in china... why imorality is in abundance.... Vatican or Catholic is too busy meddling in politics.
-
LOL
how i wish it was true. it would eliminate a lot of the world's problems. fact is its not
like i said, anyone who actually knows how the Catholic Church hierarchy works, would know thats not the case
-
LOL
how i wish it was true. it would eliminate a lot of the world's problems. fact is its not
like i said, anyone who actually knows how the Catholic Church hierarchy works, would know thats not the case
di po talga maeliminate yang world's problems... kasi nga sila ang cause ng world's problems...
the problem is Vatican is nakikiasawsaw sa politika...
sa atin panahon pa ng kastila yan eh... sino ang linalapitan ng mga gobernadorcillo para makuha nila ang pabor ng espanya...???
regarding sa RH bill.... sino ang unang kinokonsider ng mga kandidato ngayon??? majority of the population... ano ang religioin ng majority sa atin... inaabangan ng mga alagad ng simbahang katoliko ang sinumang susuporta sa RH bill and malamang lamang wala doon ang suporta ng CBBP...
-
can you substantiate this?
because anyone who understands how the hierarchy of the Church works would know that this is not true
There are backchannels (e.g. meetings and phone calls) that the Church have leveraged for over a millenia.
In the Philippines, the only reason why the FVR administration had some degree of success with birth control was because FVR is a staunch Methodist.
http://www.zenit.org/article-22024?l=english
a vast majority of Charities in the world are religious based. and the biggest among them are Catholic charities, like Caritas
Do you a third-party source other than a propaganda tool of the Vatican? Verified statistics and figures would also be good.
-
There are backchannels (e.g. meetings and phone calls) that the Church have leveraged for over a millenia.
In the Philippines, the only reason why the FVR administration had some degree of success with birth control was because FVR is a staunch Methodist.
this sounds like nothing more than a conspiracy theory. unless you can validate this claim
Do you a third-party source other than a propaganda tool of the Vatican? Verified statistics and figures would also be good.
google it. there is no world-wide ranking, and Catholic charities are split into many different organizations on different levels. Caritas is the most recognizable and largest, but you have many smaller charity work being done by missionaries and convents run by nuns, something similar to what Mother Theresa and the Missionaries of Charity
-
maybe you need to dig deeper sa history ng vatican/roman catholics...
-
maybe you need to dig deeper sa history ng vatican/roman catholics...
i have
have you?
and by digging deeper, i mean look for actual facts. not read Dan Brown fictional novels
-
deeper... lalim laliman mo pa ng kunti... malapit lapit na yan...
-
this sounds like nothing more than a conspiracy theory. unless you can validate this claim
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=72353
"Ramos charged that Mrs. Arroyo’s “flip-flopping” family planning policy seemed to be caused by her “unwarranted subservience” to the Catholic Church that is strongly opposed to contraceptives."
google it. there is no world-wide ranking, and Catholic charities are split into many different organizations on different levels. Caritas is the most recognizable and largest, but you have many smaller charity work being done by missionaries and convents run by nuns, something similar to what Mother Theresa and the Missionaries of Charity
I did and the largest charity organizations in the world do not include the Catholic Church in any way shape or form.
-
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=72353
"Ramos charged that Mrs. Arroyo’s “flip-flopping” family planning policy seemed to be caused by her “unwarranted subservience” to the Catholic Church that is strongly opposed to contraceptives."
i don't see the Vatican there
the CBCP is representative of the Church and are in charge of the various arch-diocese in the Philippines
to let you know, each archbishop who heads their own archdiocese is responsible for their own terriroty. the Pope or anyone in the Vatican wouldn't meddle in a local issue unless is has a greater impact to the world (then its not a local issue anymore) although nothing actually prevents them from making public comments (Hollywood celebrities make public comments as well, does that influence national policies? who knows, maybe)
I did and the largest charity organizations in the world do not include the Catholic Church in any way shape or form.
LOL
like i mentioned, it doesn't say Catholic Church outright, but the various organizations that represent the Catholic Church and are part of the Catholic Church, like Caritas. and usually each local diocese would have their own charities for their own communities
collectively these comprises the largest charity in the world, as all are under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. for different purposes and reasons, they have to be represented as separate and smaller organizations
-
saan naggaling ang pera ng catholics?
-
i don't see the Vatican there
the CBCP is representative of the Church and are in charge of the various arch-diocese in the Philippines
I may have misunderstood your statement. Being a non-religious person, I always looked at the Vatican as being the de facto head of the Catholic Church and custodian of doctrine and canon. I always thought the CBCP would not deviate from these and is answerable to the Vatican, hence, I concluded that CBCP lobbying in the Philippines equates to that of the Vatican.
LOL
like i mentioned, it doesn't say Catholic Church outright, but the various organizations that represent the Catholic Church and are part of the Catholic Church, like Caritas. and usually each local diocese would have their own charities for their own communities
collectively these comprises the largest charity in the world, as all are under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. for different purposes and reasons, they have to be represented as separate and smaller organizations
There should be some form of documentation regarding their scope and size. There is a financial aspect to this, as we all know. There seems to be nothing but purely anecdotal evidence out there.
-
saan naggaling ang pera ng catholics?
the same place where all charities get their money
donations
-
I may have misunderstood your statement. Being a non-religious person, I always looked at the Vatican as being the de facto head of the Catholic Church and custodian of doctrine and canon. I always thought the CBCP would not deviate from these and is answerable to the Vatican, hence, I concluded that CBCP lobbying in the Philippines equates to that of the Vatican.
the way the heirarcy is setup is that it is not a centralized governing body where the Pope micromanages everything. with the Church being present in most countries in the world, it would be impossible to do so. the Church hierarchy would be more or less like the government of Canada (the US by comparisson is still more centralized than Canada). each province in Canada is independent of each other, each with its own laws, each with its own government. taxation and government services are handled by each province separately although some are handled on a national level, most still lies with each province.
now, with the Vatican, yes there is a central belief and the Vatican handles this. being One Church, all bishops must be in communion with the bishop of Rome, or more popularly known as the Pope. which means dogmatic teachings are uniform across the entire Church. but, each bishop has independent rule of their respective territories. meaning they can impose their own rules and regulations that are not covered by doctrines and are not in violation of any doctrines
for example, in Canada the only holidays of obligation besides sundays are Christmas and New Year. in the Philippines, it includes December 8 as a holiday of obligation
other varyinig practices are the use of altar girls (instead of exclusively boys) which again the local archbishop may decide for or against.
technically, each archbishop may enact a rule independent of another bishop. so some practices can be different in the Archiocese of Manila compared to Cubao. but most countries like the Philippines would have a national body of bishops such as the CBCP so as that policy can be uniform throught the country
the CBCP would not deviate from the doctrinal teachings of the Church. but they don't have to have the permission of the Vatican, or orders from the Vatican for them to act on something they feel they need to do. when Cardinal Sin decided to rally the people against Marcos, its his decision, not the Vaticans. i'm not sure but they may also be notifying the Vatican of such actions so that the Vatican can evaluate and see if they are violating any church doctrine. but in most cases they are independent in their decisions or actions
There should be some form of documentation regarding their scope and size. There is a financial aspect to this, as we all know. There seems to be nothing but purely anecdotal evidence out there.
the bigger charities like Caritas would have, but the smaller ones may or may not. but you can count that its presence is wide reaching, as every locale that has a church would definitely have a local charity attached to it, and even in far flung areas you will see missionaries bringing food and medicine to people
with or without any hard data, its a fact that the number of charities is dominated by religious based charities, and the biggest of these religions is the Catholic Church
-
di ba dapat... hindi namamalimos ang simbahan sa kung sino sino lang... they even ask politics to donates in their charity...
di ba dapat ang self funding org or ibig ko sabihin... givings, offerings must exclusively for members only.
-
1. build a church
akala ko ako lang ang me ganitong iniisip.....talaga nga....siksik, liglig at umaapaw ang negosyo ng relihiyon dito sa bansa natin.... ;D
-
the same place where all charities get their money
donations
Fact: the Catholic church has heavily invested monetary interests in SM Corp.
...and a lot of other corporations.
-
Fact: the Catholic church has heavily invested monetary interests in SM Corp.
...and a lot of other corporations.
and of course this information came from a very reliable source...
-
Yes.
My distant cousin whose a priest and an accountant for the Catholic Church. He comes to an office in one of those buildings along MOA to do, in chinese for lack of better term, xiuxia (count money/magbilang ng pera).
Please dpogs, don't offend me by implying that I just make up information such as that.
-
The seperation of Church and State in the Philippines is like traffic rules: They act more like suggestions rather than laws.
-
Yes.
My distant cousin whose a priest and an accountant for the Catholic Church. He comes to an office in one of those buildings along MOA to do, in chinese for lack of better term, xiuxia (count money/magbilang ng pera).
Please dpogs, don't offend me by implying that I just make up information such as that.
no... im not implying taht you just make up that information ... its the other way around... im supporting your statement...
die hard catholics dont know really waht behind Roman Catholics... and to someone na magsasabi na may connection ang Catholics sa SM ay iyong may tunay lang na alam sa nangyayari, a very reliable source.
hope naintindihan mo ako... it is my belief and my stand that Vatican have power over politics. and that every religion in our country must not middle unless their life were in threat.
-
so walang karapatan mag invest ang simbahan?
you're making it sound like its a criminal act
-
Don't new priests swear to a life of poverty? Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Don't new priests swear to a life of poverty? Correct me if I'm wrong.
poverty chastity and obedience
pero napakayaman ng simbahan. partida na walang "ikapo"/tithe ang simbahang katoliko.
-
so walang karapatan mag invest ang simbahan?
you're making it sound like its a criminal act
what is the main purpose of a church?
it is to spread its teaching or to invest in business???
-
poverty chastity and obedience
pero napakayaman ng simbahan. partida na walang "ikapo"/tithe ang simbahang katoliko.
Bukod pa yun mga donations and fund raising for rebuilding churches etc.
-
what is the main purpose of a church?
it is to spread its teaching or to invest in business???
I'm curious, in your congregation/gathering/church, what do you guys do with your tithes? Again, just curious.
-
I'm curious, in your congregation/gathering/church, what do you guys do with your tithes? Again, just curious.
rest assure it is not use for politics.
-
You never answered the question.
-
PM you sir.
-
Don't new priests swear to a life of poverty? Correct me if I'm wrong.
you are wrong
it depends on the religious order. not every priest has a vow to poverty
besides, the Church as whole, its not like the money go to the priests. its like saying the salespeople at SM are rich because SM has a lot of money
the Church as a charitable institution must also find ways to maximize the money it receives from donations. and you can't always count on donations. especially if the economy is bad, people won't give as much or not give at all. what now in that instance?
-
PM you sir.
bakit ka puro PM?
if you bear the truth and do nothing wrong, why afraid to tell the world?
-
what is the main purpose of a church?
it is to spread its teaching or to invest in business???
bakit, sa tingin mo ba the Church can do its activites without money?
its not like you born agains aren't tithing your members. the least in the Catholic Church, giving money is not mandatory
Churches use electricity and water, Churches has employees to pay, maintenance fees and other upkeep
if you send missionaries, you need money
if you send priests to distant barrios, again those are not free
and i'd like to see you prove that the Church is rich. because those are nothing but hearsay.
-
i'd also like you to prove that the church isn't rich. that is also hearsay.
-
i'd also like you to prove that the church isn't rich. that is also hearsay.
i'm not making the accusation, so you're the one who should bring your proof
-
bakit, sa tingin mo ba the Church can do its activites without money?
its not like you born agains aren't tithing your members. the least in the Catholic Church, giving money is not mandatory
Churches use electricity and water, Churches has employees to pay, maintenance fees and other upkeep
if you send missionaries, you need money
if you send priests to distant barrios, again those are not free
and i'd like to see you prove that the Church is rich. because those are nothing but hearsay.
as i said earlier... the church main goal is to spread their teachings... not to have business to SM.
the church main source of income is its members (not in the public, bus, jeep, malls with donation box, etc)...
again... every church must not be affiliated to any business (private or public)... a church name must not be drag to any business issue.
if a church want a fund raising for some activity or special needs, they must encourage their members to give more money (and each member must think a way to generate fund pero hindi dapat gagamitin ang pangalan ng simbahan).
parang ganito... a church will have a free dental and medical mission. a pastor/priest/minister will encourage each members to give or commit certain amount of money. kung paano ipoproduce ng members ang money na ibibigay nila sa church wala nang pakialam doon ang church as long as they produce it sa tamang pamamaraan and hindi gagamitin ang pangalan ng simbahan.
come to think of it... a church will build a charity institution. and will seek help from different organization even if its not a member of the church.
a church must not build a charity institution if they cannot support it by their own. if a chruch want to build a charity institution that they cannot support... alisin mo sa koneksyon ng church.
theres lot of charitable institution that are not connected to any religous denomination.
the main goal of the church is to feed the hungry soul not the stomach. a man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.
a group of people must choice.... it is to build a church (to meet people's spiritual need and to ease them from eternal sufferings) or to build a charity (to ease people's temporary sufferings such as luck of food and shelter... etc)....now if a these group of people decide to build both (church and charity) they must see to it that they support it by themselves, by their own members.
once again... church income must come solely to its members (hindi kung saan saang organization)... i think business establishment is right when they post in their door "No solicitation".
-
OT. (pagpaumanhin niyo po)
@DPOGS
paki-usap lang po, huwag mo babuyin ang wikang Ingles sa mga posts mo.
inihambing ko ang "grammar" ng mga posts mo vs. sa mga p.m. mo sa akin. mukang sinasadya mo ang mga mali sa mga posts mo. ano kaya ang intensyon mo? ::)
ok lang sa akin, wala ako pakialam kung ang miyembro ay tunay na may pagkukulang sa wikang ingles pero sa isang miyembro na galing sa UPLosBanos, BS statistics?, mahirap makapaniwala.
taga UPLB ka rin tenderfender....
UPLB din ako... taong labas (di nakaranas magdorm)...
BS Statistics Batch 97.
salamat.
-
sir ojofool,
namemersonal ka ba or you just have doubt sa english ko.
Yes. I admit it. I came from UPLB and graduated by God's grace.
Galing ako sa Bicol province, graduated 7th place in a public national high school. What do you expect sa quality ng public school (hindi ko nilalahat).... I respect all my teachers but please everybody here in this forum know the disadvantages of a public school academically.
May phobia ako sa english since elementary. I like Filipino (its a lingua franca of our nation). I have adoration to Filipino language na naglead sa akin to mawalan ng gana sa english. without proper knowledge in english nkatapos ako ng elem and high school but i can understand very well english... i just dont have the ability to write it gramatically, vocabulary wise.
pass the UPCAT since mataas ang math and science rating ko compare sa vocabulary and reading comprehensions... medyo tumaas lang ang reading comprehension kasi kasama pa ang Filipino sa UPCAT before.
here comes UPLB.
believe it or not... i never took English 1 and English 2 or any English subject in GE course. I choose Filipino 1 and Filipino 2. i enroleed in experimental class of Natural Science in Filipino (with only 15 students enrolled). I choose Speech in Filipino rather than Speech in English. Ganito ako katakot sa english.
Now... maybe you amazed how i graduated in UPLB. If you are a UP students there is no such genious (although may mga mangilan ngilan dyan sa UP na genious talaga). For me being a UPLB is how to survive academically and to value environment at the same time (UPLB close to nature). its not how you are good in english or science... its how we survive.
Just to give you a hint... Im BS Statistics Batch 97... but I am Class 2007. It took me 10 years ot finish my course.
Now you are wondering bakit sometimes magaling ako sa english... everytime nagPM ako... pinagiisipan ko muna yan... whereas sa mga thread replies ko...mabilisan...ni wala na akong tyaga magcheck kung gramatically mali ako or di ko nagamit maayos ang vocabulary ko. its just sometimes... ideas is easy to explain in english than Filipino.
Hope malinaw na sa iyo.
Not UPLB student knew English perfectly... what is unique sa amign mga taga UP is "how we survived".
I may be have little knowledge sa English grammar... but I am very knowledgeable in Math and in Science. I am a mathematician not an english instructor or communication grad.
by the way my Special Problem/Thesis is regarding sa differences ng NSO and BAS regarding their differences in statistical methodology, sampling, formulas used, population control, finances and political issues concerns... were written in English (of course)... ask me how i wrote my thesis.... may editor ako.
-
i'm not making the accusation, so you're the one who should bring your proof
what accusation did i make? you're the one who said something about that being hearsay. now tell me, how are you so sure that all of that is just hearsay? how do you know that the church isn't rich? you seem to be so sure of yourself anyway, so go ahead.
-
I may be have little knowledge sa English grammar...
Sir, with all due respect, this is why I refrain from commenting or correcting your English, as I recognize not everybody uses English as their primary language.
but I am very knowledgeable in Math and in Science. I am a mathematician not an english instructor or communication grad.
Unfortunately, this is what strikes me as odd. Let's continue this in the Atheism/Agnosticism thread.
-
You might be surprised also how I survived Thesis/SP presentation.
I convinced (i just cant believe how i convinced them) my panelist na I can deliver my message more accurately if they will allow me to speak in Filipino (in tagalog and in english).
i admit to them, na lahat ng GE communiation subject ay kinuha ko 'in Filipino'. and i can convey my ideas in Filipino (without language boundary) maliban sa mga mathematical terms/definition.
Sir allistair, is right. i use Filipino as my primary language... kaya kahit mahirap para sa akin... iyong mga idea na maganda ipaliwanag in english as much as i can... ginagawa kong english.
its not about langugae.... its about ideas. and ideas hindi maipapaliwanag kung walang language but it doesnt mean na english lagnuage ang gamitin natin. all languages are equal... there is no inferior languages. and i am proud that i considered Filipino as my primary language, english is just but secondary.
Ill explain also to you bakit it took me 10years to finish my course.
maraming factors ang pagtatapos ng pag-aaral. hindi lang mental capability (i believe lahat ng pumasa ng UPCAT maaaring magtapos ng kurso nila. sipag at tiyaga lang), but also economically wise. marami ang hindi nakakapagtapos sa UP because of financial (thier parents cannot support them anymore)... i am a working student. at sa labas ako nagwowork. and i just decided na unahin ko na muna work ko before study... for 7 years... i work to survive in Laguna and later lived in the church teaching high school mathematics with an allowance of 1500/mnt (since food/shelter ay libre naman). and eventually, decided to finish my course readmitted (AWOL status) and finish all the remaining subject without failing once.
but as you can see... I graduated from one of the reputable universities in the philippines but i never mentioned it in this post.
kasi dito hindi nagmamatter kung saan ka grumadweyt... nagmamatter dito kung nasa matino tayong pag-iisip o hindi. kung may moralidad tayo o wala.
-
as i said earlier... the church main goal is to spread their teachings... not to have business to SM.
the church main source of income is its members (not in the public, bus, jeep, malls with donation box, etc)...
again... every church must not be affiliated to any business (private or public)... a church name must not be drag to any business issue.
if a church want a fund raising for some activity or special needs, they must encourage their members to give more money (and each member must think a way to generate fund pero hindi dapat gagamitin ang pangalan ng simbahan).
parang ganito... a church will have a free dental and medical mission. a pastor/priest/minister will encourage each members to give or commit certain amount of money. kung paano ipoproduce ng members ang money na ibibigay nila sa church wala nang pakialam doon ang church as long as they produce it sa tamang pamamaraan and hindi gagamitin ang pangalan ng simbahan.
come to think of it... a church will build a charity institution. and will seek help from different organization even if its not a member of the church.
a church must not build a charity institution if they cannot support it by their own. if a chruch want to build a charity institution that they cannot support... alisin mo sa koneksyon ng church.
theres lot of charitable institution that are not connected to any religous denomination.
the main goal of the church is to feed the hungry soul not the stomach. a man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.
a group of people must choice.... it is to build a church (to meet people's spiritual need and to ease them from eternal sufferings) or to build a charity (to ease people's temporary sufferings such as luck of food and shelter... etc)....now if a these group of people decide to build both (church and charity) they must see to it that they support it by themselves, by their own members.
once again... church income must come solely to its members (hindi kung saan saang organization)... i think business establishment is right when they post in their door "No solicitation".
and whats wrong with that? if by making good investment you can make more money to help more people, or are you forgetting the Parable of the Talents?
who made these rules?
it certainly is not in the Bible, or any Sacred Tradition, or any Church teaching
you're making rules up where there are no rules
putting your money in investment doesn't mean you're affiliated to that company. its the same as putting your money in a bank. wala ka bang alam sa investment?
investing in stock is high yeild, high risk. you make more money at the risk of losing more if the stock were to lose money. its not like the Church actually owns a part of SM or SM owns a part of the Church. its an investment.
its the same as putting your money in the bank. every time you put your money in the bank, are you affiliated with the bank? no. but the bank uses your money to fund its transactions, its business. in return, they give you interest, a share of the earnings because you let them use your money.
again, saan nanggaling itong rule na ito? you're not just making things up and becoming self righteous. you're like the hypocrite pharisees in the bible, making up rules to elevate yourself as righteous while trying to lower the others as sinners.
there is nothing that prohibits any religious organization from performing legal business transactions that would help generate interest in money it is holding.
theres lot of charitable institution that are not connected to any religous denomination.
the main goal of the church is to feed the hungry soul not the stomach. a man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.
-
what accusation did i make? you're the one who said something about that being hearsay. now tell me, how are you so sure that all of that is just hearsay? how do you know that the church isn't rich? you seem to be so sure of yourself anyway, so go ahead.
maybe you're not the first one to bring it up, but you're siding with those who say the Church has a lot of money
i'm saying that the Church does not have as much money as a lot of people think it has
the burden of proof are on the accusers. innocent 'til proven guilty, right? so prove that the Church has a lot of money. if you side with the accusers, then you have to bring proof. otherwise, all that is accused is just hearsay and baseless
-
Again, with all due respect -- but Choy and Dpogs' discussions clearly shows that despite a supposed central basis for morality, which is the bible, they still can't even see eye to eye. I guess it shoots down the notion that the bible should the sole basis of morality for everyone.
-
investing in stock is high yeild, high risk. you make more money at the risk of losing more if the stock were to lose money. its not like the Church actually owns a part of SM or SM owns a part of the Church. its an investment.
Sir, pardon me, but doesn't buying shares mean owning a part of the company you invest in? I'm not particular about the type of stock (preferred, common, participating) since that's not my field, but that's my general idea.
That, as far as responsible investment goes, investors should, ideally, invest in those companies not only because they agree with the business model, but with the corporate charter and support the corporate citizenship?
Of course, if you consider stocks purely an investment vehicle then it's all a matter of risk/return.
-
I'm wondering, if all of the money the RC church gets is funneled back into charities and the upkeep of Vatican, how come it still hasn't declared bankruptcy? Or is a significant part of contributions being saved by the Church?
-
I used to go to a Catholic school when I was a wee gay boy.
I remember being forced to sell raffle tickets or else I would not be able to graduate. The raffle was for a new building that the school wanted to build. I also remember that the raffle was not registered with the DTI. In the end, my parents were forced to buy all the tickets.
How come the church can do all these illegal and immoral acts?
-
Sir, pardon me, but doesn't buying shares mean owning a part of the company you invest in? I'm not particular about the type of stock (preferred, common, participating) since that's not my field, but that's my general idea.
not always. there are stocks that doesn't mean you own a portion of the company. there are also stocks that don't even pay a dividend.
also, if you purchase stocks for the purpose of an investment portfolio, owning the company is the last thing on your mind. what you want is to make a good profit on your investment
and most companies issue thousands, if not millions of shares that having a few hundred wouldn't really mean anything.
That, as far as responsible investment goes, investors should, ideally, invest in those companies not only because they agree with the business model, but with the corporate charter and support the corporate citizenship?
Of course, if you consider stocks purely an investment vehicle then it's all a matter of risk/return.
i always had a different idea of stocks when i was in the philippines. but when i moved here to Canada, where you have long term investments for your retirement savings, i see these investment stocks in a different way. and i think most people wherever they are in the world, use these stocks this way. they're not concerned about ownership in the company, just making a profit off the investment.
for all we know the Church would have an independent financial adviser who would tell them which stocks to invest in
-
I'm wondering, if all of the money the RC church gets is funneled back into charities and the upkeep of Vatican, how come it still hasn't declared bankruptcy? Or is a significant part of contributions being saved by the Church?
of course it makes sense to save some for a rainy day
also, the truth about the Vatican is that hardly any money that goes into local dioceses would go to the Vatican. like i said before, each diocese has autonomy under a bishop (or archbishop). in fact, what donations the archdiocese of manila gets will not be shared with any other archdiocese in the Philippines. the idea is to keep the money to help the community from where it comes from. of course, there are regular contributions to larger charities which will then use the money for charitable functions in different parts of the country or even the world. but thats only a small portion. most of it will stay in the diocese for operating expenses and for charitable work within that same community
-
also, the truth about the Vatican is that hardly any money that goes into local dioceses would go to the Vatican.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican is far, far, wealthier than any local diocese can ever be. The papacy doesn't need our donations.
-
of course it makes sense to save some for a rainy day
So the Church saves money. But if wealth is defined as the accumulation of resources, then, by that definition, it's safe to say that the Church is wealthy? It's savings will have to be in the hundreds of millions if not in the billions.
Just curious and thinking out loud.
-
But if wealth is defined as the accumulation of resources, then, by that definition, it's safe to say that the Church is wealthy? It's savings will have to be in the hundreds of millions if not in the billions.
The Vatican's wealth was estimated by bankers to be between $10 to $15 billion.
In 1965.
-
The Vatican's wealth was estimated by bankers to be between $10 to $15 billion.
In 1965.
This could be a tad conservative too due to the priceless artifacts in the Vatican's possession.
-
Money and power.
What could go wrong? ;D
-
Another influence of the church to our government is the misinformation on the use of contraceptives. Notice that I did not use the term "artificial contraceptives" because it is only in the Philippines that it is used.
And guess who popularized the term?
Almost all Filipinos I have met are very hesitant to buy and use condoms. In fact, they are ashamed to be seen by another person with it. I know it is harsh to say but the church has successfully brainwashed us against the use of something that can protect us from diseases and can solve the problem of overpopulation.
-
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican is far, far, wealthier than any local diocese can ever be. The papacy doesn't need our donations.
i don't know how much the Philippines gives to the Vatican, but here in North America there's a once a year collection specifically for the Vatican
they also make most of their money from tourists and tourism in general
-
The Vatican's wealth was estimated by bankers to be between $10 to $15 billion.
In 1965.
they're estimating that by looking at the land and the buildings
nevermind that they have owned this piece of land for 1700 years and it wasn't worth much even by the standards of that time
you can't really put a price on the Vatican's fixed assets because they're one of a kind. what price can you put on the Sistine Chapel?
-
So the Church saves money. But if wealth is defined as the accumulation of resources, then, by that definition, it's safe to say that the Church is wealthy? It's savings will have to be in the hundreds of millions if not in the billions.
Just curious and thinking out loud.
do you expect them to just spend all they money they receive for the sake of spending it just to say they were poor?
and saying its in the billions is a gross exaggeration meant by people like you to incite hatred. there's absolutely no basis for that accusation
they receive money, they have to be responsible for it
-
Another influence of the church to our government is the misinformation on the use of contraceptives. Notice that I did not use the term "artificial contraceptives" because it is only in the Philippines that it is used.
And guess who popularized the term?
Almost all Filipinos I have met are very hesitant to buy and use condoms. In fact, they are ashamed to be seen by another person with it. I know it is harsh to say but the church has successfully brainwashed us against the use of something that can protect us from diseases and can solve the problem of overpopulation.
nuking metro manila will instantly eliminate 16 million from the population, should we do that? it solves over population, plus it frees up a lot of land for development
-
nuking metro manila will instantly eliminate 16 million from the population, should we do that? it solves over population, plus it frees up a lot of land for development
who mentioned nuking?
I believe one of the solutions of overpopulation right now is educating (not miseducating) people on the PROPER use of contraceptives.
-
who mentioned nuking?
I believe one of the solutions of overpopulation right now is educating (not miseducating) people on the PROPER use of contraceptives.
point was, there are many ways to curb population. doesn't mean that every idea is good.
-
nuking metro manila will instantly eliminate 16 million from the population, should we do that? it solves over population, plus it frees up a lot of land for development
Frankly, I've thought about that many times.
You have to use something like a Massive Ordnance Air Blast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb) or MOAB bomb, (or Russia's "Father of All Bombs") though, to avoid nuclear contamination and fallout. This way you can reclaim the land much faster.
You also want to take out Malacañan, the Senate, and the Batasang Pambansa at the same time.
Would be a terrible, terrible way to get rid of a lot of the country's problems.
-
do you expect them to just spend all they money they receive for the sake of spending it just to say they were poor?
and saying its in the billions is a gross exaggeration meant by people like you to incite hatred. there's absolutely no basis for that accusation
they receive money, they have to be responsible for it
Whoah, strong words there. Incite hatred? Would it surprise you to know that I give almost weekly donations to Quiapo every weekend?
And accusation? You do know how an accusation is worded right? Reread my post.
No need to go all defensive. As I said in that post, I was "thinking out loud", turning the facts over in my head.
Be careful sir.
-
they're estimating that by looking at the land and the buildings
Actually sir, in 1965, of the Vatican's wealth "Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate."
To be fair, "Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians."
"Unlike ordinary stockholders," though, "the Vatican pays no taxes on this income..."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
Again, this was in 1965. A lot has changed since then.
-
point was, there are many ways to curb population. doesn't mean that every idea is good.
Uhuh. One way to curb population growth is to allow gay marriage.
In the words of the late Joker, Tada!
-
Uhuh. One way to curb population is to allow gay marriage.
In the words of the late Joker, Tada!
lol@alistair
Gay people as a contraceptive. ;D
-
lol@alistair
Gay people as a contraceptive. ;D
It's Mother Nature's natural contraception.
-
One way to curb population growth is to allow gay marriage.
Hadelman's The Forever War. ;D
-
It's Mother Nature's natural contraception.
This actually makes sense if you look at the bigger picture.
-
(Nora Aunor tone): Hindi...ako...condom!
-
the way the heirarcy is setup is that it is not a centralized governing body where the Pope micromanages everything. with the Church being present in most countries in the world, it would be impossible to do so. the Church hierarchy would be more or less like the government of Canada (the US by comparisson is still more centralized than Canada). each province in Canada is independent of each other, each with its own laws, each with its own government. taxation and government services are handled by each province separately although some are handled on a national level, most still lies with each province.
now, with the Vatican, yes there is a central belief and the Vatican handles this. being One Church, all bishops must be in communion with the bishop of Rome, or more popularly known as the Pope. which means dogmatic teachings are uniform across the entire Church. but, each bishop has independent rule of their respective territories. meaning they can impose their own rules and regulations that are not covered by doctrines and are not in violation of any doctrines
for example, in Canada the only holidays of obligation besides sundays are Christmas and New Year. in the Philippines, it includes December 8 as a holiday of obligation
other varyinig practices are the use of altar girls (instead of exclusively boys) which again the local archbishop may decide for or against.
technically, each archbishop may enact a rule independent of another bishop. so some practices can be different in the Archiocese of Manila compared to Cubao. but most countries like the Philippines would have a national body of bishops such as the CBCP so as that policy can be uniform throught the country
the CBCP would not deviate from the doctrinal teachings of the Church. but they don't have to have the permission of the Vatican, or orders from the Vatican for them to act on something they feel they need to do. when Cardinal Sin decided to rally the people against Marcos, its his decision, not the Vaticans. i'm not sure but they may also be notifying the Vatican of such actions so that the Vatican can evaluate and see if they are violating any church doctrine. but in most cases they are independent in their decisions or actions
the bigger charities like Caritas would have, but the smaller ones may or may not. but you can count that its presence is wide reaching, as every locale that has a church would definitely have a local charity attached to it, and even in far flung areas you will see missionaries bringing food and medicine to people
with or without any hard data, its a fact that the number of charities is dominated by religious based charities, and the biggest of these religions is the Catholic Church
It’s a setup in paper … but we have the history in our text books which RC tried to eliminate … not because it is untrue … but because it is a bad image for them. What further substantiation do you need? I will not debate about these facts – it will always be played down by those who looked the other way!
Clearly the bible says … you will know them (the agents of good and the agents of evil) … by their fruits and their roots!
Lest I be misinterpreted, not all RC (and its institution) followed their roots!
As to the separation of church & state, I think this is just human machination to avoid connivance between church & state – that is the church using the state to further its agenda, or the state using the church in furthering its agenda.
Religion should be considered personal in nature, while state affairs are collective efforts for the good of the majority without imposing on ones religious persuasion. Church is the group of individuals with the same religious persuasion.
Is it bad for the church to be involved in business? Of course not. The bible do not prohibit this.
The church commercial dealings is commercial, and not religious in nature. As such, it should be taxed (give to Caesar what belongs to him). RC has their own bank in the past – Monte de Piedad. If it is not subject to tax, it is not because of the separation of church & state – it could be an accommodation of the state to the church. Of course, this is also some of the roots of corruption in commercial dealings using church as its shield – invoking separation of church & state!
Is it bad for the church to get involve in state affairs? Depends! If the state is not imposing on personal matters relating to ones religious persuasion, then the church should not meddle. If it does impose on our personal religious persuasion, the church should get involve (this is biblical – read RUTH). Some of our good democratic laws were derived with the indulgence of godly people.
So is CBCP justified in meddling in our past political upheavel? Why not! It is supposedly intended to support good governance (so we thought in will result to good governance). But note that this meddling was not force to each individual. It is up to the individual to act according to his own reason or personal persuasion.
So is CBCP justified in meddling with this new health bill? I THINK NOT! The state is passing a law to control our population growth the way it knows how – but reading the law does not encroach on ones personal action. CBCP is only crying foul because it is counter to their doctrine. But RC is such an inconsistent organization – minoring the major and majoring the minor. Instead of CBCP giving its much efforts in media rhetorics against the initiative of the state that does not impose on ones decision to act, why don’t they instead push their own program to counter the same problem (educate if its to educate). If they do not want to control population, how can they help the state in controlling the problems that emanates from poor family planning. PRAY? Eat DOCTRINES?
Bottomline, people should have freedom to ones exercise of religion. Church is just the group of individuals with the same religious persuasion. Our political life will always be influenced by our religious leaning but not to the point that it will effectively trample other people’s religious leaning (think about Jihad). So there is not much separation here!
However, state affairs should not encroach/impose on our religious leaning if our religious leaning do not trample on the right of others to exercise theirs. (This is the issue of ARMM muslim ways of managing ARMM areas whose residents are predominantly Christians – the rebels seemed to be bent in governing using Islamic persuasion – or so I think)
-
Frankly, I've thought about that many times.
You have to use something like a Massive Ordnance Air Blast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb) or MOAB bomb, (or Russia's "Father of All Bombs") though, to avoid nuclear contamination and fallout. This way you can reclaim the land much faster.
You also want to take out Malacañan, the Senate, and the Batasang Pambansa at the same time.
Would be a terrible, terrible way to get rid of a lot of the country's problems.
hey, this is what games like SimCity has taught us
if we can just "delete" stuff and start building again, you can have a grand new city very shortly
-
Whoah, strong words there. Incite hatred? Would it surprise you to know that I give almost weekly donations to Quiapo every weekend?
And accusation? You do know how an accusation is worded right? Reread my post.
No need to go all defensive. As I said in that post, I was "thinking out loud", turning the facts over in my head.
Be careful sir.
i'm just being honest. especially in the Philippines where being rich seems to be an evil thing. people do use that argument about the Church to promote hatred against it
-
Actually sir, in 1965, of the Vatican's wealth "Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate."
To be fair, "Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians."
"Unlike ordinary stockholders," though, "the Vatican pays no taxes on this income..."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
Again, this was in 1965. A lot has changed since then.
to whom would the Vatican pay their taxes to? they are their own state. even if they pay taxes, it goes back to them. its like their just fooling themselves and wasting their time if they pay taxes
-
Uhuh. One way to curb population growth is to allow gay marriage.
In the words of the late Joker, Tada!
and who says the world's population needs to be curtailed?
while China, India and the Philippines are crying because of their population boom, the Western world is worried because they do not have enough population to support funding for their soon-to-be retirees
the problem is not over population. its just population distribution
-
to whom would the Vatican pay their taxes to?
Um, maybe to the country where the companies they own stocks in are registered/headquartered and generate/report income in?
Last I checked, if you owned stock in say, Canada, you pay Canada the taxes on your dividends.
-
i'm just being honest. especially in the Philippines where being rich seems to be an evil thing. people do use that argument about the Church to promote hatred against it
Then generalize your statement.
-
It’s a setup in paper … but we have the history in our text books which RC tried to eliminate … not because it is untrue … but because it is a bad image for them. What further substantiation do you need? I will not debate about these facts – it will always be played down by those who looked the other way!
Clearly the bible says … you will know them (the agents of good and the agents of evil) … by their fruits and their roots!
and i'd like you to prove this accusation
the problem is people keep huling stones at the Church, but don't even know the facts
someone says something, and they believe it
Lest I be misinterpreted, not all RC (and its institution) followed their roots!
clarify please
the Church is one and the same. some people may form their own opinions, but that doesn't mean they sway the Church to another direction. they just move individually into that other direction. which technically means they as a person have separated from the Church
As to the separation of church & state, I think this is just human machination to avoid connivance between church & state – that is the church using the state to further its agenda, or the state using the church in furthering its agenda.
separation of Church and state serves both a positive and a negative agenda. the positive being, it opens the state for a diversified population regardless of religion
the negative being, the state becomes unanswerable to the Church on moral issues, and becomes its own moral police. the problem here is morality becomes a democracy, so if 50% + 1 agrees that murder should become legal, then it becomes legal.
Religion should be considered personal in nature, while state affairs are collective efforts for the good of the majority without imposing on ones religious persuasion. Church is the group of individuals with the same religious persuasion.
i believe thats one of the evils that is taught in todays world. that faith is personal and should be separated from society. the second commandment of Jesus is to love thy neighbor. obviously community is very important in worshiping God. its a constant theme in the bible that we should all be One, not only with God but with one another. if we can't live together on earth, how can we live together in heaven? God will not permit chaos and separation in heaven.
Is it bad for the church to be involved in business? Of course not. The bible do not prohibit this.
as long as the business is done in good faith
The church commercial dealings is commercial, and not religious in nature. As such, it should be taxed (give to Caesar what belongs to him). RC has their own bank in the past – Monte de Piedad. If it is not subject to tax, it is not because of the separation of church & state – it could be an accommodation of the state to the church. Of course, this is also some of the roots of corruption in commercial dealings using church as its shield – invoking separation of church & state!
don't think that only the Church benefits from being tax exempt. ideally those who contribute to the Church should get tax exemption for their contributions. thats how it is here in North America. i don't know why this isn't followed in the Philippines. maybe because they BIR wants ever centavo in its pocket
Is it bad for the church to get involve in state affairs? Depends! If the state is not imposing on personal matters relating to ones religious persuasion, then the church should not meddle. If it does impose on our personal religious persuasion, the church should get involve (this is biblical – read RUTH). Some of our good democratic laws were derived with the indulgence of godly people.
since its EDSA day, remember that if Cardinal Sin didn't get involved with state affairs 24 years ago, Marcos would have remained. Ramos and Enrile would have been vaporized in a military attack on Camp Crame
So is CBCP justified in meddling in our past political upheavel? Why not! It is supposedly intended to support good governance (so we thought in will result to good governance). But note that this meddling was not force to each individual. It is up to the individual to act according to his own reason or personal persuasion.
agree, as pastors of the people they should look at the total well being of every person. not just spiritual, but total, including their daily lives as Citizens of the Philippines
also, don't forget that they are Philippine Citizens as well. they have the right to get involved into politics
So is CBCP justified in meddling with this new health bill? I THINK NOT! The state is passing a law to control our population growth the way it knows how – but reading the law does not encroach on ones personal action. CBCP is only crying foul because it is counter to their doctrine. But RC is such an inconsistent organization – minoring the major and majoring the minor. Instead of CBCP giving its much efforts in media rhetorics against the initiative of the state that does not impose on ones decision to act, why don’t they instead push their own program to counter the same problem (educate if its to educate). If they do not want to control population, how can they help the state in controlling the problems that emanates from poor family planning. PRAY? Eat DOCTRINES?
again, as Philippine citizens, they have the right to say yes or no to laws, just as everybody else
also don't forget their obligation to protect the morality of the people. so of course they should fight laws that will promote immorality
Bottomline, people should have freedom to ones exercise of religion. Church is just the group of individuals with the same religious persuasion. Our political life will always be influenced by our religious leaning but not to the point that it will effectively trample other people’s religious leaning (think about Jihad). So there is not much separation here!
However, state affairs should not encroach/impose on our religious leaning if our religious leaning do not trample on the right of others to exercise theirs. (This is the issue of ARMM muslim ways of managing ARMM areas whose residents are predominantly Christians – the rebels seemed to be bent in governing using Islamic persuasion – or so I think)
well, of course Muslim communities want legal laws that coincide with Muslim laws so they can carry out punishments according to Islamic laws without violating the law of the land
-
and who says the world's population needs to be curtailed?
while China, India and the Philippines are crying because of their population boom, the Western world is worried because they do not have enough population to support funding for their soon-to-be retirees
the problem is not over population. its just population distribution
What a novel idea. How do you propose to do this?
-
Um, maybe to the country where the companies they own stocks in are registered/headquartered and generate/report income in?
Last I checked, if you owned stock in say, Canada, you pay Canada the taxes on your dividends.
no, i don't think thats how it works
i own stocks from a past company i worked for thats registered in NASDAQ, and i have never paid even a cent to the US government
you pay taxes to the state where you live
dividends are paid to stock after the company have paid their taxes anyways. dividends are always the last to be paid, expenses first, then to creditors, then to employees, then to shareholders
-
What a novel idea. How do you propose to do this?
change in policy. but its entirely up to the nations needing additional population. Canada is already taking in a couple hundred thousand people every year. i hear Germany also has this problem but i don't know about their immigration policy
faster processing would be beneficial to both the immigrant and the country that needs the additional people. its already happening but we just need to find a way to make it faster and more convenient to those who would want to move
in the Philippines, developing other areas is also a good idea. so not everyone would have to come to the already overcrowded Metro Manila to find a decent job.
also, with current technology we can develop cities in non arable land so as to preserve crop growing land
there's still a lot of land in the world for people to live in, and to plant crops for food. we just need better distribution
-
change in policy. but its entirely up to the nations needing additional population. Canada is already taking in a couple hundred thousand people every year. i hear Germany also has this problem but i don't know about their immigration policy
faster processing would be beneficial to both the immigrant and the country that needs the additional people. its already happening but we just need to find a way to make it faster and more convenient to those who would want to move
in the Philippines, developing other areas is also a good idea. so not everyone would have to come to the already overcrowded Metro Manila to find a decent job.
also, with current technology we can develop cities in non arable land so as to preserve crop growing land
there's still a lot of land in the world for people to live in, and to plant crops for food. we just need better distribution
So in the hypothetical case that these countries you've identified as underpopulated suddenly impose extra stringent immigration policies that severely limit the number of people that can migrate then the burden of overpopulation becomes their problem because they won't open their borders to immigrants? Sa kanila natin isisisi kung bakit madaming tao sa ibang bansa? ::)
That's like a person who decides to keep cats as pets and then allows them to breed unchecked to the point that there's just no more room in his house and he can barely feed them. And instead of acknowledging that he has an overpopulation problem in his house, he says that it's not a problem of too many cats, its about distributing the cats to all of the houses in the neighborhood who has room for them so that they can assume the problem of taking care of these animals and looking for extra money to feed them.
You really thought this one through. ::)
-
the problem here is morality becomes a democracy, so if 50% + 1 agrees that murder should become legal, then it becomes legal.
Murder, as defined, is already 'unlawful'. The neutral term is homicide. Yes, there are lawful forms of homicide. Such as the death penalty.
if we can't live together on earth, how can we live together in heaven? God will not permit chaos and separation in heaven.
Why can't each denomination have their own little heavens? Or parts of heaven walled off? That way, everyone can think they're the only ones there. :D
-
no, i don't think thats how it works
you pay taxes to the state where you live
Depends on the jurisdiction, and any tax treaties in effect.
I own a handful of stock in a Canadian company, and every time I get my dividend check there's always a withholding tax.
"Non-residents stockholders receiving dividend income from Canadian resident corporations are subject to a 25% withholding tax."1 (http://www.professionalreferrals.ca/2004/01/taxation-of-dividend-income/)
Pretty sure they have similar laws that apply to corporations. Not sure about sovereign states.
-
and i'd like you to prove this accusation
the problem is people keep huling stones at the Church, but don't even know the facts
someone says something, and they believe it
I dont know how old you are ... if there are no people who left the catholic church, those that are already high in the hierarchy ... then probably we are still all guessing here. And you sound as if we dont know the facts just because it runs counter to your assessments ... why? are all that the RC did in time past not documented at all? Or just like the NAZI, are you denying them altogether now?
I will not hurl stone ... I will just quote those documents ... but I dont need to ... they are still open books till now!
What substantiation do you need ... for me to enumerate them all? I can do that ... but for what reason ... because you are not aware of it? I just have Zaide way back in my HS in 1976!
-
Hi Choy,
I like the way you dissect the issues - my comments in blue :)
clarify please
the Church is one and the same. some people may form their own opinions, but that doesn't mean they sway the Church to another direction. they just move individually into that other direction. which technically means they as a person have separated from the Church
we may have vague reference to church. in separation of church & state, it is the hierarchical leadership of the laymembers vs the heirarchical leadership of the citizen (the state). So you are correct in saying they remain the same one church
separation of Church and state serves both a positive and a negative agenda. the positive being, it opens the state for a diversified population regardless of religion
the negative being, the state becomes unanswerable to the Church on moral issues, and becomes its own moral police. the problem here is morality becomes a democracy, so if 50% + 1 agrees that murder should become legal, then it becomes legal.
The state is never answerable to the church in its state functions - neither the church answerable to the state in its church functions. The church should inspire and encourage the laymember to be an active agent to bring about good & righteous governance in the state as a citizen (not the church). The state should protect the right of the citizen in areas of faith
i believe thats one of the evils that is taught in todays world. that faith is personal and should be separated from society. the second commandment of Jesus is to love thy neighbor. obviously community is very important in worshiping God. its a constant theme in the bible that we should all be One, not only with God but with one another. if we can't live together on earth, how can we live together in heaven? God will not permit chaos and separation in heaven.
This is a lie peddled by some politicians on us & sadly some of the church leadership. However, the church is also being extreme in this manner, putting their weight on the state as if they are political power that the state should deal with. Faith can never be separated from our daily dispense of our responsibility as citizen. In fact, faith will influence us how we conduct ourselves in our respective state. Thus, it is imperative for all laymembers to assert their voice as citizens in the state - influence the decision making process of the state - through the exercise of rights as a citizen. THUS, it is perfectly alright for a priest torun for public office if he is exercising his right as a citizen and influence the decision of state toward good governance according to his personal faith leaning as a state unit administrator/lawmaker
as long as the business is done in good faith
Yup. But let it be clear that the conduct of commercial business by the church is in no way a church function, but an exercise that is within the control/regulation of the state. For this reason, business (even if it is held by religious organization) should be answerable to the state by way of taxes and compliance to business rules. Sadly, this is gravely abused by some institutions. They usually do not exercise social responsibilities.
don't think that only the Church benefits from being tax exempt. ideally those who contribute to the Church should get tax exemption for their contributions. thats how it is here in North America. i don't know why this isn't followed in the Philippines. maybe because they BIR wants ever centavo in its pocket
Again, this is a function of the state. and if ever in US, such was accomodation was given to the church, then that's good. If the citizen will lobby for a law be enacted by the state to copy same exemption in your area - then perhaps it will be implemented - but this is a state function.
since its EDSA day, remember that if Cardinal Sin didn't get involved with state affairs 24 years ago, Marcos would have remained. Ramos and Enrile would have been vaporized in a military attack on Camp Crame
The best that I can think of is that Cardinal Sin encouraged the citizens to exercise their rights as citizens - that is perfectly okay. In fact such exercise is not limited to the catholic hierarchy. And mind you it is not the church that paved the way for EDSA - it is the collective efforts of every individual exercising his responsibility as a citizen - not as a church! Pardon me - I always got a feeling that CBCP is laying claim on the success of EDSA1. I disagree - it is the laymembers of the church execising their social responsibilities as a citizen under a state.
agree, as pastors of the people they should look at the total well being of every person. not just spiritual, but total, including their daily lives as Citizens of the Philippines
This is the new world view which I advocate. All well-meaning laymembers should actively involved in politics (affairs of the state) and not disregard it as something contrary to ones faith - this is simply not true. We should not let all those ungodly people running the state in chaos and utmost disregard for good governance & order. We should be in the forefront in influencing sensible & reasonable laws that will aleviate our challenges and difficulties.
also, don't forget that they are Philippine Citizens as well. they have the right to get involved into politics
again, as Philippine citizens, they have the right to say yes or no to laws, just as everybody else
also don't forget their obligation to protect the morality of the people. so of course they should fight laws that will promote immorality
well, of course Muslim communities want legal laws that coincide with Muslim laws so they can carry out punishments according to Islamic laws without violating the law of the land
But good governance (state function) is about the collective protection and equal treatment of people. It is not about imposing ones' belief toward another. it should not traverse against individual belief/faith. Thus, ARMM is not batting for state functions - they want it a combo state/church functions! and thus should be stopped at all cost - as we should voice out for the scrapping of such
-
I believe that the church should be taxed on their profits on investments. Profit is the main purpose for their investment. Gumamit ka kasi ng pera to generate income unlike income sa mga donations.
And question (subjective), ganun nga ba kalaki talaga ang kita through investing in shares or stocks? Wala kasi ako masyadong alam dito. I mean is it worth investing Php50 million in shares rather than using the money to directly help the people in dire or immediate need?
-
the problem is not over population. its just population distribution
and how do you achieve that population distribution, is this doable?
the business model of the catholic church - the more the people the more money it gets - baptism - marriage - death- daily collections etc. well its all bout money.
-
the Catholic Church encourage responsible parenthood
-
The Concern with Authority
Authority must be understood by every Christian since it is the entire basis of our relationship with Christ. “Authority” means “the right to command and enforce obedience.” When we accept Jesus Christ as our “Lord,” this means that He is supposed to become our “boss” or “authority” over our whole life (Luke 6:46). In addition, the Bible becomes the source of authoritative instruction for our Christian Life (2 Tim. 3:16).
Since submission to authority is basic to Christian Life, it is important that we understand that all authority is a God-given institution, and all types of authority are related. The Lordship of Christ is the highest source of authority that we must answer to (Matt. 28:18), but God has also ordained at least three other categories of subordinate authority in the world that we must also submit to:
(1) The Family - Children are to obey their parents (Eph. 6:10). The wife is to cooperate with her husband, which is the head of the family (Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Tim. 2:12), and the husband is to submit to Christ and love his wife (Eph. 5:23,25).
(2) The State - We are to cooperate with those authority figures and obey the local and federal laws of the land, within the boundaries of God’s laws (1 Pet. 2:13-14).
(3) The Church - Christians are to submit to the headship of Christ which is exercised through His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), His Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and Church leadership (Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17).
God has established these authorities as the “delegated” extensions of His authority. If we resist cooperation, we are in effect, resisting God’s own authority and Lordship. This is why Paul told wives to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22).
Rebellion Disrespects all Authority
Just as all authority is related to other authority, all rebellion is also interrelated. It does not regard any class of authority. Rebellion is “the unwillingness to be ruled by any source other than self.” It is an indiscriminate contempt toward all authority.
Our attitude toward Christ as our Lord, is directly associated with our attitude toward other authority. Jesus Christ cannot be fully “Lord” over the person who harbors rebellion toward authority figures. The Bible says, “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Rom. 13:2).
Just as God is the source of all authority, Satan is author of all rebellion. We may recall that the Devil (Lucifer), a former archangel, was originally cast out of Heaven because he led an insurrection against God (Isa. 14:12-15). Rebellion is the very spirit of Satan’s attitude (Eph. 2:2), and if we permit it to dominate us it will infect and taint our attitude toward all authority, including God and His Word.
The prophet Samuel said, “...rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam. 15:23). The Apostle Peter said that those who are corrupt “despise authority” (2 Pet. 2:10), and the Proverbs say, “An evil man seeks only rebellion...” (Prov. 17:11).
What About Corrupt Authority?
Obviously, in the absence of Godly and moral values, there can sometimes be abuses of authority and perversions in government. Such was the case when Peter and John were forbidden to preach the Gospel by the Jewish Sanhedrin. They replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19). The only circumstance that disobedience to authority is justifiable by scripture, is if it conflicts with the laws of God. Authority should be cooperated with except in those situations where laws depart from the basic moral and righteous principles of God’s Word.
Paul tells us to pray for all those in authority: “ I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God can use our prayers for those in authority, to either change their heart or remove them from power entirely. God reserves the right of administering discipline and reproof to those who represent His authority (Rom. 14:4, 1 Chron. 16:21-22).
a government must maintain peace and order among her people and must create laws that will not contradicts to God's law.
a church must function according to God's will and must teach all her members to be a good citizen obeying all rules and regulation set by the government as long as it does not contradicts God's law.
any form of rebellion to our existing authority (government) are wrong. This is what every Christian (every citizen) must understand. All authority is from God. Hindi natin kailangang sumama sa mga rally rally to show our discontentment sa present administration... If it is God give... then we can pray to our own altar para alisin ang sinumang masamang namumuno sa atin.
for me... participation of any denomination to a 'rally' is not advisable... para na rin nating sinabing may karapatang mag-rally ang mga anak natin sa ating authority. if ever meron silang hindi nagustuhan sa ating pagdidisiplina... magvivigil sila sa labas ng bahay natin... as much as possible we wont that happen so as parents gagawin natin lahat ng ating makakaya not to disappoint our child and at the same hindi sila ma-spoiled.
same sa ating government... our government must do her best not to disaapoint us but at the same time not tolerating us sa kung anuman ang gusto natin nasusunod... and kung naging masama man ang pinuno natin... our only rights is to pray for them earnestly since it was God who put them to position and only God can bring them down.
note:
maybe we have unrighteous leaders mainly because every church here in the Philippines were not doing their obligations : to produce a law-abiding, God fearing, family oriented and morally upright individuals/citizens.
maybe we have too many corrupt officials because church pastors/minister/priest/etc were too busy collecting money from their members/businessess/etc. or too busy doing their business outside church.
maybe we have too many unfit officials because every church were too busy criticizing the present administration instead teaching her members to be a righteous official.
di man lang ba tayo nagtataka... tinatawag ang Pilipinas na Christian nation and yet we have too many corrupt officials... why... our churches today are not doing their obligation/duties... to produce God-fearing, morally upright, family oriented and law-abiding citizens.
our government are doing what she is supposed to do: giving us a freedom of religion (hindi pa tayo pinagbabawalan)... sana ang bawat simbahan din (i mean lahat that includes all RC, protestants, etc) gawin nila kung ano ba talaga ang dapat nilang ginagawa... hindi kung anu-anong political endorsement/bussineses...
-
the Catholic Church encourage responsible parenthood
by letting their priests reject their parental responsibilities? Or how about by being pedophiles?
-
by letting their priests reject their parental responsibilities? Or how about by being pedophiles?
a priest in our town was stripped off his priesthood due to an offense he committed ..so what is your point ?
-
his point was pretty clear to me
-
not to me as i replied to a point different from his
-
by letting their priests reject their parental responsibilities? Or how about by being pedophiles?
The government also rejects their own laws or anti-corruption agendas and so on and so forth.
The point is moot. The flaws you mentioned are exactly that, flaws that are separate (and even opposite) from the original principles and ideals.
On topic, you have a corrupt government and a church intertwined in politics, and you know what they say about corruption like a rotten core...
-
not to me as i replied to a point different from his
that's too bad then, and i said it was clear to ME :). no worries though, i'm sure you'll get it eventually.
-
that's too bad then, and i said it was clear to ME :). no worries though, i'm sure you'll get it eventually.
how about you po sir...
do you have any ideas to share regarding separation of church and state?
-
^ i'm all for it. i believe the church has meddled long enough.
-
that's too bad then, and i said it was clear to ME :). no worries though, i'm sure you'll get it eventually.
too bad you failed my line
on topic:
there are pros and cons to said separation as one of our participants pointed out.. government must have a starting point as to what is right and wrong... the religious sector has a role on this segment.. when guide lines and state laws were established, then implementation rest on government sector
-
a priest in our town was stripped off his priesthood due to an offense he committed ..so what is your point ?
is he in jail?
What support has the church given to the victim/s?
-
is he in jail?
What support has the church given to the victim/s?
sorry sir i am not allowed to share further info as i do not have permission.. suffice to impart that the Church is acting on cases brought to its attention... i hope you don't mind
-
sorry sir i am not allowed to share further info as i do not have permission.. suffice to impart that the Church is acting on cases brought to its attention... i hope you don't mind
so you are withdrawing this as proof then?
-
so you are withdrawing this as proof then?
huh ?
-
a priest in our town was stripped off his priesthood due to an offense he committed ..so what is your point ?
You cited this as an example and yet you refuse to tell the whole story.
Is the priest in jail?
Did the church do anything for the welfare of the victim/s?
Did the church testify against the priest?
-
You cited this as an example and yet you refuse to tell the whole story.
Is the priest in jail?
Did the church do anything for the welfare of the victim/s?
Did the church testify against the priest?
you were implying that the Church was not responsible enough to act on offenses committed by priest(s).. i told you a sample of action taken by the Church on a priest.. hence, my point: the Church is responsible enough to take actions on complaints brought to its attention...for me that was enough and is the whole story... a sinner committed sin, punished... it is either you believe it or not.. it was that simple
-
You cited this as an example and yet you refuse to tell the whole story.
Is the priest in jail?
Did the church do anything for the welfare of the victim/s?
Did the church testify against the priest?
To sir Dorian gray & bass nut:
Things will not clear because you have not established a common ground.
(1) Church has no law to execute like the state for the simple reason that church is church and state is state. Putting a man in jail is a function of the state, and not the church! Of course, the church should assist in prosecution if the member really offended a state law that is punishable by state. (Doctrine of giving to caesar what is caesar's)
(2) At best, the church can excommunicate the member. Church can not execute law - it is illegal.
(3) the church, as used here pertains to their hierarchy of leadership (as to the RC). However, the Bible made no mention of hierarchy in church. If you read DPOGS post, you will note that the only headship in the church is CHRIST! The present hierarchy of RC is not in the Bible. I am not saying it is wrong - it is how they wanted to administer and organize themselves - But as far as the Bible is concerned, they are not the church. Again, at best, they are just representative of the RC organization.
And bottomline, all commercial dealing of the church should be subjected to tax ... unless the state exempted them from therein ... thus, non-payment is not automatic as if it is a mandated default since they are operated by "religious" organization!
-
i agree sir aHobbit.. Church can excommunicate the member which was exactly my cited example.. can't provide dorian further infos other than that as i believe i have to maintain respect to parties involved.
-
(3) the church, as used here pertains to their hierarchy of leadership (as to the RC). However, the Bible made no mention of hierarchy in church. If you read DPOGS post, you will note that the only headship in the church is CHRIST! The present hierarchy of RC is not in the Bible. I am not saying it is wrong - it is how they wanted to administer and organize themselves - But as far as the Bible is concerned, they are not the church. Again, at best, they are just representative of the RC organization.
And bottomline, all commercial dealing of the church should be subjected to tax ... unless the state exempted them from therein ... thus, non-payment is not automatic as if it is a mandated default since they are operated by "religious" organization!
let me just correct this misconception
the heirarchy of the Church is in the Bible
the Aposltes are the leaders of the Church. they have appointed Bishops as their successors. as helpers of the Bishops you have the Presbyters (priests) and the Deacons. Paul even makes mentions of who are worthy to occupy such positions
besides, sino ba nauna? Church, Tradition o Bible? the Bible cannot dictate the Church because the Church pre-dates the bible by 300 years. in fact, even the earliest written piece that appears of the Bible didn't come into existence 20-30 years after Christ established the Church.
-
I dont know how old you are ... if there are no people who left the catholic church, those that are already high in the hierarchy ... then probably we are still all guessing here. And you sound as if we dont know the facts just because it runs counter to your assessments ... why? are all that the RC did in time past not documented at all? Or just like the NAZI, are you denying them altogether now?
I will not hurl stone ... I will just quote those documents ... but I dont need to ... they are still open books till now!
What substantiation do you need ... for me to enumerate them all? I can do that ... but for what reason ... because you are not aware of it? I just have Zaide way back in my HS in 1976!
i'm 33 years old
i'm saying a lot of the accusations are baseless and nothing but blowing up issues. i'm not saying that those who occupied positions in the Church are sinless. far from it, i recognize all human beings living on earth as equal, all sinners. not just because you're pope mean you cannot sin. that would deny him of his humanity and therefore the choice to love God and be saved.
this is what happens. one issue occurs, and those who seek to paint the Church in a negative light would make it sound like everyone in the Church does it. its like saying, there are many snatchers in Cubao, therefore everyone in Cubao are snatchers
and whatever happened to innocent 'til proven guilty? it seems people like hurling accusations without substantiating them. yes, there are those who have fallen and sinned within the Church, as much as outside. but before you raise your finger in accusation, make sure that you are pointing at the right person. because many in the Church are still true to their vows and their calling. i'm asking people to be fair for the vast majority who are innocent, do not lump them together with the small minority who are guilty
-
So in the hypothetical case that these countries you've identified as underpopulated suddenly impose extra stringent immigration policies that severely limit the number of people that can migrate then the burden of overpopulation becomes their problem because they won't open their borders to immigrants? Sa kanila natin isisisi kung bakit madaming tao sa ibang bansa? ::)
i think worldwide politics is to blame. every country should open their boarders. given this day and age, we realize more than ever how small the planet is. i think there should be a global government with a global economy. resources are being used as political tools now, like oil. each person in each country needs a good complement of resources and yet a small number of countries would control a huge portion of a certain resource.
i guess thats why i moved to Canada, we have the second largest land area, second largest known deposit of oil, and the largest amount of fresh water in the world, heheheheh
That's like a person who decides to keep cats as pets and then allows them to breed unchecked to the point that there's just no more room in his house and he can barely feed them. And instead of acknowledging that he has an overpopulation problem in his house, he says that it's not a problem of too many cats, its about distributing the cats to all of the houses in the neighborhood who has room for them so that they can assume the problem of taking care of these animals and looking for extra money to feed them.
You really thought this one through. ::)
well, the issue here is that the neighbors are complaining that they don't have enough cats and they're being runover by mice. so what do you do?
fact is, the world as a whole is not overpopulated. only certain countries are overpopulated within their borders. population redistribution was never a problem until recently. in the past you can easily move into another country or kingdom without much hassle as it is today
-
Murder, as defined, is already 'unlawful'. The neutral term is homicide. Yes, there are lawful forms of homicide. Such as the death penalty.
nice of you to bring this up
there are a lot of murders being legalized out there. of course the death penalty has been there since time immemorial, but in the last century or so we have more new things like abortion and assisted suicides. so at what point are we going to say NO to death? i'm sure pretty soon there'll be more and more reasons to kill someone legally. i'm just guessing here, but if a child has some sort of disability that will prevent them from living a normal life and become a financial burden, maybe the parents will be allowed at some point in the future to kill the child. and that initiative won't come from parents. it may be forced on them by insurance companies or the government who currently fund for the care of the disabled in the Western world. and when the Western world approves of such, it will be only a matter of time before countries like the Philippines would follow suit.
Why can't each denomination have their own little heavens? Or parts of heaven walled off? That way, everyone can think they're the only ones there. :D
learning a little bit more about the Christian faith would provide the answer
the main theme of the Bible is oneness, oneness with God and one another and that oneness is achieved by love. to have separate heavens means we're not one. that is why God presents Himself as a Father to all, because we are to be one big family
-
Hi Choy,
I like the way you dissect the issues - my comments in blue :)
thanks!
we may have vague reference to church. in separation of church & state, it is the hierarchical leadership of the laymembers vs the heirarchical leadership of the citizen (the state). So you are correct in saying they remain the same one church
the oneness of the Church doesn't really rely on the leadership here on earth, but the ultimate leadership in heaven, which is God. to be one with the Church is not just being merely a member of the Church but being of one mind with the Church in essential beliefs. not in every belief, but the essential ones. and this doesn't remove your freedom of choice, you can choose. just that your choice will lead you away from the Church. remember, every choice has a consequence
The state is never answerable to the church in its state functions - neither the church answerable to the state in its church functions. The church should inspire and encourage the laymember to be an active agent to bring about good & righteous governance in the state as a citizen (not the church). The state should protect the right of the citizen in areas of faith
the issue here is how do you divide legal and moral issues? the Church would have to interfere with the matters of the state when what the state wants to do will lead to immorality among the citizenry. and the state would interfere with the Church if faith practices cross the line of legality. that is why you see there are raids of cults who lead people to illegal acts, like polygamy or brainwashing them to commit mass suicide. the same way the Church needs to stand up to the government if they try to lead the people to commit immoral acts by decalring these legal.
people have the wrong notion of Separation of Church and State. they thing that because they are separated, doesn't mean they shouldn't be meddling in the business of one another. thats not true. they both exist in the same society and their members are the same people, how can they not cross paths?
separation of Church and State merely implies that the State should not be governed by the Church directly and that the State should not have an official Religion which it sponsors.
This is a lie peddled by some politicians on us & sadly some of the church leadership. However, the church is also being extreme in this manner, putting their weight on the state as if they are political power that the state should deal with. Faith can never be separated from our daily dispense of our responsibility as citizen. In fact, faith will influence us how we conduct ourselves in our respective state. Thus, it is imperative for all laymembers to assert their voice as citizens in the state - influence the decision making process of the state - through the exercise of rights as a citizen. THUS, it is perfectly alright for a priest torun for public office if he is exercising his right as a citizen and influence the decision of state toward good governance according to his personal faith leaning as a state unit administrator/lawmaker
fully agree. like i said before, the members of the Church and the visible leaders are all Filipino Citizens, why can't they have a say on the matter? people like Korina Sanches would voice their opinions on their talk shows and that influences a great many. why don't we complain about them? they become powerful with their radio talk show or TV show.
Yup. But let it be clear that the conduct of commercial business by the church is in no way a church function, but an exercise that is within the control/regulation of the state. For this reason, business (even if it is held by religious organization) should be answerable to the state by way of taxes and compliance to business rules. Sadly, this is gravely abused by some institutions. They usually do not exercise social responsibilities.
not sure how stock investments are taxed in the Philippines, but bank deposits are taxed at the source, so it gets fairly taxed.
and don't think its the religious organizations that are the only ones "abusing" this. many private companies try to save on taxes by making contributions to charities and religious organizations
exempting religion from tax is actually part of a government's responsibility of ensuring that religious practice continues within its territory. if churches are not tax exempt, then contributions are not tax exempt, which means less people contributing, which means churches will lose money, close down, and organized religion will fade away.
Again, this is a function of the state. and if ever in US, such was accomodation was given to the church, then that's good. If the citizen will lobby for a law be enacted by the state to copy same exemption in your area - then perhaps it will be implemented - but this is a state function.
yup, i know. but i think the BIR won't be too happy by extending the exemption. and besides, they've already made strides to ensure that income tax filings are automated. most employees get their ITRs automatically filed for them, to minimize fraud
The best that I can think of is that Cardinal Sin encouraged the citizens to exercise their rights as citizens - that is perfectly okay. In fact such exercise is not limited to the catholic hierarchy. And mind you it is not the church that paved the way for EDSA - it is the collective efforts of every individual exercising his responsibility as a citizen - not as a church! Pardon me - I always got a feeling that CBCP is laying claim on the success of EDSA1. I disagree - it is the laymembers of the church execising their social responsibilities as a citizen under a state.
i'd give them that place in history. remember how instrumental the Church was for EDSA. Radyo Veritas is a Catholic Radio station and Cardinal Sin made that plea from his radio show, if i'm not mistaken. i'm not saying their the solely responsible for EDSA 1, but they're at the forefront
This is the new world view which I advocate. All well-meaning laymembers should actively involved in politics (affairs of the state) and not disregard it as something contrary to ones faith - this is simply not true. We should not let all those ungodly people running the state in chaos and utmost disregard for good governance & order. We should be in the forefront in influencing sensible & reasonable laws that will aleviate our challenges and difficulties.
sadly, the culture within our political system is highly corrupt, and even most religious people who enter it would be corrupted. i guess it needs a special kind of person with extremely solid morals to withstand the pressures of corruption. the problem also with our system is if you fight the system, those who enjoy the corruption will surely bring you down, one way or another. its a "our way or the highway" kind of thing
But good governance (state function) is about the collective protection and equal treatment of people. It is not about imposing ones' belief toward another. it should not traverse against individual belief/faith. Thus, ARMM is not batting for state functions - they want it a combo state/church functions! and thus should be stopped at all cost - as we should voice out for the scrapping of such
well, the ARMM is a way to satisfy their wants without having to resort to a completely independent islamic state in Mindanao. if you force them into the common legal system of the Philippines, they will just continue to rebel. its really a touchy situation. how do you satisfy both side of those who agree and oppose it?
-
and how do you achieve that population distribution, is this doable?
the business model of the catholic church - the more the people the more money it gets - baptism - marriage - death- daily collections etc. well its all bout money.
again, i'm saddened by such baseless accusations
there are many smaller religions with less members who makes more money
the Church doesn't want population control because its the natural thing to do. fighting the design of God, which is the human body, brings a lot of evils into the world.
i already find Filipino society very promiscous. i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.
-
i already find Filipino society very promiscous. i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?
Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.
Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.
If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.
Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.
-
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?
Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.
Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.
If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.
Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.
i agree, contraceptives are not to blame for that
but it does make the problem worse. seeing as there is already a problem now, why fan the flames?
and you know what, contraceptives will not solve the population issue. so what next after contraceptives fail? abortion? it only leads to greater evil
-
again, i'm saddened by such baseless accusations
This is one basis:
http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2008/02/chruch-construction-billion-dollar.html
from the article:
Most atheists have realized what a racket religion can be. Just the construction of megalomaniacal megachurches is a billion dollar business. Christians try to justify their faith by saying how much churches help the poor, but look where so much of the money is going. It reminds me of the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church built enormous, ornate cathedrals while most people were in miserable poverty.
i already find Filipino society very promiscous. i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.
It's not only the Filipinos, i have my basis,look at the rankings. Canada is on the top ten.
PROMISCUITY RANKINGS OF MAJOR COUNTRIES*
1 United Kingdom
2 Germany
3 Netherlands
4 Czech Republic
5 Australia
6 USA
7 France
8 Turkey
9 Mexico
10 Canada
from:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5257166.ece
-
let me just correct this misconception
the heirarchy of the Church is in the Bible
the Aposltes are the leaders of the Church. they have appointed Bishops as their successors. as helpers of the Bishops you have the Presbyters (priests) and the Deacons. Paul even makes mentions of who are worthy to occupy such positions
besides, sino ba nauna? Church, Tradition o Bible? the Bible cannot dictate the Church because the Church pre-dates the bible by 300 years. in fact, even the earliest written piece that appears of the Bible didn't come into existence 20-30 years after Christ established the Church.
I have to answer you ... ;)
The church in the Bible is not referred to as an organization of a specific religion (or sect if you will).
However, the church you are refering to here is the RC (minus all those professing Christianity in the form of protestants) - and RC dogma will show that!
The headship of the church is CHRIST.
There is no mention in the Bible that the apostleship is transferrable to the next generation.
The offices mentioned in the Bible is not really to designate officers that will lead the church - but rather, to orderly dispense various gifts that are useful for the development and growth toward maturity of a true believer. Thus, church in the New Testament is somehow used in two (2) forms. (1) the universal church - collective and (2) the local church - groups in certain areas.
Of course, priest there is. But as you read the letter of Peter, the priests are referred to the individual believer - that is, a believer in Christ is a priest in God, because he have direct access to God through Jesus - not the RC version, which was copied from the Jews in the exercise of their sacrifice rituals in the temple (in the Old Testament), that is, only the priest can perform sacrifices and have access to God.
This RC version of priests have been invalidated already when Christ died on the cross, ripping the separation of the HOLY of HOLIES (where the cevenant of GOD is placed access only by priests) and the place where people waits for the priest.
SINO ANG NAUNA!
There is no church if there is no basis! The basis is JESUS ministry - then His death - and then the ministry through the apostles.
Such basis is the foundation - though may not be written at that time, have been passed by faithful followers of Christs - and later written by God's faithful men for preservation.
The gospel according to Matthew - by a Jewish tax collector (If my memory does not fail)
Mark - by Paul's assistant in his ministry tothe Gentiles
Luke - by a greek doctor
John - the Beloved (I am not sure)
Then followed by theepistles (letters ) to vartious local churches.
So to answer your question - The Bible, though not yet written physically & compiled as it is now, surely preceed the church, for it is the very foundation of the exercise of the Christian faith.
The epistles have warned about those tradition, which early on, are becoming mixed with "Christian" looks! For if the Bible can not be made the basis of the church, and tradition is hardly documented and accepted by Bible scholars as something that is "inspired by God" just like the rest of the books of the Bible - then we have big problems here! But RC needed that to lay to all its claims of being the true church!
As you have pointed out, only the written (compiled) Bible was written 20-30 years after CHRIST established the church! And this basis (scriptures) now compiled and made available to the common man prompted Martin Luther's expose! But this does not mean, the letters of the Bible was not there when CHRIST established the church.
-
You may also point out that the church started with Peter - when JESUS said "upon this rock".
carefully - JEsus called peter "petros" - a small rock.
But Jesus used the word PEtra - the foundation rock - as the church foundation - which does not refer to Peter, but to JESUS himself. And rightly so, because the church foundation should be somebody not as fallible/fickle-minded as Peter, but somebody as steady as Jesus - and He is also the HEAD of it.
This is further shown by many passages pertaining to the foundation as JESUS, and not Peter. And in the letter of Peter to a local church, all believers are referred to as "stones" (petros) just like Peter, which is making up the whole church - whose foundation is Christ, the columns the apostles & martyrs, and the walls all the believers, and the top is CHRIST also.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ
Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 PETER 2
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
MARK 12
10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
-
i'm 33 years old
i'm saying a lot of the accusations are baseless and nothing but blowing up issues. i'm not saying that those who occupied positions in the Church are sinless. far from it, i recognize all human beings living on earth as equal, all sinners. not just because you're pope mean you cannot sin. that would deny him of his humanity and therefore the choice to love God and be saved.
this is what happens. one issue occurs, and those who seek to paint the Church in a negative light would make it sound like everyone in the Church does it. its like saying, there are many snatchers in Cubao, therefore everyone in Cubao are snatchers
and whatever happened to innocent 'til proven guilty? it seems people like hurling accusations without substantiating them. yes, there are those who have fallen and sinned within the Church, as much as outside. but before you raise your finger in accusation, make sure that you are pointing at the right person. because many in the Church are still true to their vows and their calling. i'm asking people to be fair for the vast majority who are innocent, do not lump them together with the small minority who are guilty
I stand corrected if it is how you establish our common ground ... that the church are not them (the leaders who form part of the church) ... but they are individual, as fallible as man.
I also said that not all in the org does the same thing.
-
i think worldwide politics is to blame. every country should open their boarders. given this day and age, we realize more than ever how small the planet is. i think there should be a global government with a global economy. resources are being used as political tools now, like oil. each person in each country needs a good complement of resources and yet a small number of countries would control a huge portion of a certain resource.
i guess thats why i moved to Canada, we have the second largest land area, second largest known deposit of oil, and the largest amount of fresh water in the world, heheheheh
well, the issue here is that the neighbors are complaining that they don't have enough cats and they're being runover by mice. so what do you do?
fact is, the world as a whole is not overpopulated. only certain countries are overpopulated within their borders. population redistribution was never a problem until recently. in the past you can easily move into another country or kingdom without much hassle as it is today
Dont worry ... one world and one currency is in the works ... it is part of the prophecy hinting the end times!
-
My comments in RED now :D
...
the issue here is how do you divide legal and moral issues? the Church would have to interfere with the matters of the state when what the state wants to do will lead to immorality among the citizenry. and the state would interfere with the Church if faith practices cross the line of legality. that is why you see there are raids of cults who lead people to illegal acts, like polygamy or brainwashing them to commit mass suicide. the same way the Church needs to stand up to the government if they try to lead the people to commit immoral acts by decalring these legal.
--> am afraid there is a thin hair dividing line... seems to me church (leadership) is flexing its muscles and acts as political entity! To me, the citizens (part of the church now being part of the state) should stand up and be heard. I think the church leaders should just rally their members - not the leaders dooing the rattlings against the government - they are not supposedly political.
people have the wrong notion of Separation of Church and State. they thing that because they are separated, doesn't mean they shouldn't be meddling in the business of one another. thats not true. they both exist in the same society and their members are the same people, how can they not cross paths?
--> But the church (leaders), as far as the state is concerned, is not only the RC hierarchy! The church (the members) together with other well-meaning co-minded as to specific issues should voice out as (now) citizens whose rights have been violated (if this is the case). The church leaders (as citizens) an do so as citizens as well.
and don't think its the religious organizations that are the only ones "abusing" this. many private companies try to save on taxes by making contributions to charities and religious organizations
--> but the church (hierarchy) should exemplify the "right" thing if they want credibility! Otherwise, refrain!
well, the ARMM is a way to satisfy their wants without having to resort to a completely independent islamic state in Mindanao. if you force them into the common legal system of the Philippines, they will just continue to rebel. its really a touchy situation. how do you satisfy both side of those who agree and oppose it?
--> its not about their religion IMHO ... it is about political will and corruption issues of the ruling government!
-
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?
Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.
Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.
If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.
Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.
Failure of the church I would say (parenting guidelines, DepEd influence) ... and now the government is trying to prevent more damage (AIDS, unwanted birth) by distributing condoms ... and church say no to it, and if succeeded ... the state has to strategize another fire-fighting mechananism to prevent massive infections ... and the cycle go nowhere but worse.
It would be better for the church to make actions on their own and make their counter educations using their collected money, make louder noise to drown the state pronouncements ... than just rants no end for a problem which the state is seeing as emminent.
-
You may also point out that the church started with Peter - when JESUS said "upon this rock".
carefully - JEsus called peter "petros" - a small rock.
But Jesus used the word PEtra - the foundation rock - as the church foundation - which does not refer to Peter, but to JESUS himself. And rightly so, because the church foundation should be somebody not as fallible/fickle-minded as Peter, but somebody as steady as Jesus - and He is also the HEAD of it.
This is further shown by many passages pertaining to the foundation as JESUS, and not Peter. And in the letter of Peter to a local church, all believers are referred to as "stones" (petros) just like Peter, which is making up the whole church - whose foundation is Christ, the columns the apostles & martyrs, and the walls all the believers, and the top is CHRIST also.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ
Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 PETER 2
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
MARK 12
10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times
what language is Petra and Petros? its greek. did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek? no. they spoke Aramaic. Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros. He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock. when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language. now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine. the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael. that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy. but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock.
also, read along the Acts and all of the Epistles from the Apostles. the Church has already been established and it has structure, and that structure is the same structure similar to what the Catholic Church is today. and many times in the Bible the authority of the Church is mentioned. so if the Church was not established on Peter by Jesus, what is this Church that has authority that they mention?
-
Failure of the church I would say (parenting guidelines, DepEd influence) ... and now the government is trying to prevent more damage (AIDS, unwanted birth) by distributing condoms ... and church say no to it, and if succeeded ... the state has to strategize another fire-fighting mechananism to prevent massive infections ... and the cycle go nowhere but worse.
It would be better for the church to make actions on their own and make their counter educations using their collected money, make louder noise to drown the state pronouncements ... than just rants no end for a problem which the state is seeing as emminent.
i wouldn't attribute parenting failure to the Church. why? why do people like to pass on the failure of their parenting to anyone else? you're the parent, you take responsibility. example, a lot of emphasis on the media for violent shows that would negatively affect children. i grew up watching the violent robot anime, i didn't become a violent person. why? i attribute it to good parenting. since i was little i knew that superman was fake, so i shouldn't be trying to jump off the window to immitate him. that cartoons aren't real, so i shouldn't be trying to immitate Voltes V or Daimos or Maziner Z. if those cartoons influenced me to be a bad person, its not the fault of those who made the cartoons, its the fault of my parents who didn't teach me any better
condoms will not cut down on AIDS or unwanted births. trust me. there are still a ton of pregnant teenagers in the US and here in Canada were kids get sex education in highschool and get free contraceptives. there are still tons of STDs going around. in fact, in the US, 40% of people have Herpes. explain that. they have all these condom programs, why is it that 2 out of 5 people still have Herpes? these contraceptives are not the solution to the problems. in fact, they only introduce more problems of their own
-
I have to answer you ... ;)
The church in the Bible is not referred to as an organization of a specific religion (or sect if you will).
However, the church you are refering to here is the RC (minus all those professing Christianity in the form of protestants) - and RC dogma will show that!
The headship of the church is CHRIST.
no one is debating that issue. the seat of Peter occupied by the Pope is just the physical leadership on this earth. the doctrine in the Catholic Church as taught by Jesus and the Apostles is that the Church extends beyond earth, into heaven. that is why we have the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Communion of Saints (the oneness of believers on earth and in heaven). Jesus Christ is the overall head of the Church, he is the Head and the Church is the Body. Peter nor his successors never replaces Christ, they just lead the Church on earth and make sure that everyone stay true to the doctrines instituted by Christ. they have received the authority from Christ and this authority is important so that no one may make misleading teachings, which has been happening constantly over the years
There is no mention in the Bible that the apostleship is transferrable to the next generation.
oh, but there are tons of references
Paul didn't start preaching until he received the authority to do so from Ananias, who is a bishop of the Church
also, Acts 1 shows how new Apostles are "ordained" into the brotherhood, when Peter and the Apostles chose Mattias to replace Judas
The offices mentioned in the Bible is not really to designate officers that will lead the church - but rather, to orderly dispense various gifts that are useful for the development and growth toward maturity of a true believer. Thus, church in the New Testament is somehow used in two (2) forms. (1) the universal church - collective and (2) the local church - groups in certain areas.
the Universal Church is the Catholic Church (greek Katholikos - english translation - Universal)
and the dispensal of these gifts are the Sacraments of the Church, which is validly dispensed by those who inherited the authority to do so by Apostolic Succession. as is today, there are only two religions with valid Apostolic successions, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church has some validity in their succession (they have valid priests but not valid bishops)
Of course, priest there is. But as you read the letter of Peter, the priests are referred to the individual believer - that is, a believer in Christ is a priest in God, because he have direct access to God through Jesus - not the RC version, which was copied from the Jews in the exercise of their sacrifice rituals in the temple (in the Old Testament), that is, only the priest can perform sacrifices and have access to God.
of course all of us are called to be priests, but to receive the authority as presbyters, as helpers of the bishop in sheperding the flock of Christ, we have to receive this authority. you can read in the Acts that no one just becomes a bishop or priest or deacon just because they want to. they laying of hands is important in imparting the authority from someone who has the valid authority, which they received through a succession from the Apostles themselves, who received such authority from Jesus
This RC version of priests have been invalidated already when Christ died on the cross, ripping the separation of the HOLY of HOLIES (where the cevenant of GOD is placed access only by priests) and the place where people waits for the priest.
if this version has been invalidated, why did Peter and Paul and the other Apostles appoint presbyters? presbyters = priests
SINO ANG NAUNA!
There is no church if there is no basis! The basis is JESUS ministry - then His death - and then the ministry through the apostles.
Such basis is the foundation - though may not be written at that time, have been passed by faithful followers of Christs - and later written by God's faithful men for preservation.
The gospel according to Matthew - by a Jewish tax collector (If my memory does not fail)
Mark - by Paul's assistant in his ministry tothe Gentiles
Luke - by a greek doctor
John - the Beloved (I am not sure)
Then followed by theepistles (letters ) to vartious local churches.
So to answer your question - The Bible, though not yet written physically & compiled as it is now, surely preceed the church, for it is the very foundation of the exercise of the Christian faith.
nope, wrong
firstly, the Church existed 20-30 years even before the first New Testament scripture was written. because the Church was established by Jesus on Peter. at the time Jesus said, "...I will build My Church". from then on, the Church of Jesus Christ began to exist, through Him and His Apostles who he then commanded to "make disciples of all nations."
the earliest that any of the new testament books were written were in 50AD, which is 20 years after Jesus Christ has died and risen and ascended into heaven. and even then, these were just letters, nothing more. it would take another 300 years before the books were compiled and canonized into the bible we have today.
and even so, there were more letters and books going around the early Church than what we have in the Bible today. so what separates the books and letters in the Bible today from those that were excluded? who's authority is it that decided the books were to be included or excluded?
The epistles have warned about those tradition, which early on, are becoming mixed with "Christian" looks! For if the Bible can not be made the basis of the church, and tradition is hardly documented and accepted by Bible scholars as something that is "inspired by God" just like the rest of the books of the Bible - then we have big problems here! But RC needed that to lay to all its claims of being the true church!
As you have pointed out, only the written (compiled) Bible was written 20-30 years after CHRIST established the church! And this basis (scriptures) now compiled and made available to the common man prompted Martin Luther's expose! But this does not mean, the letters of the Bible was not there when CHRIST established the church.
nope, the letters of the Bible were not there when Christ established the Church because they weren't written yet. in fact, more than half of the New Testament is written by Paul or one of his scribes, and none of them were with Christ.
and you know why Martin Luther placed such emphasis on the Bible? because he had no authority! he wanted to take authority away from the Church and place it in a book. for 1500 years, no one believes that the Bible is the final authority. and by giving all authority to the Bible, people are now in danger of Biblio-idolatry. why? because too much emphasis, too much power is given to a book. God is more than just a book. for all of the history of Christianity and even the Jews, no one gave so much emphasis to a book. so why all of a sudden Luther came up with such an unfounded idea?
-
Dont worry ... one world and one currency is in the works ... it is part of the prophecy hinting the end times!
i was thinking more of the Star Trek Utopian world
too bad selfishness gets in the way of true cooperation among mankind
-
This is one basis:
http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2008/02/chruch-construction-billion-dollar.html
from the article:
Most atheists have realized what a racket religion can be. Just the construction of megalomaniacal megachurches is a billion dollar business. Christians try to justify their faith by saying how much churches help the poor, but look where so much of the money is going. It reminds me of the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church built enormous, ornate cathedrals while most people were in miserable poverty.
i hardly believe blogs are sources for unbiased reports
or are you one of those, "if its on the web, it must be true"
hint, majority of the Charitable organizations in the world are religion-based. and the biggest of which is the Catholic Church (collectively). don't think the Church is just hoarding the money it receives
It's not only the Filipinos, i have my basis,look at the rankings. Canada is on the top ten.
PROMISCUITY RANKINGS OF MAJOR COUNTRIES*
1 United Kingdom
2 Germany
3 Netherlands
4 Czech Republic
5 Australia
6 USA
7 France
8 Turkey
9 Mexico
10 Canada
from:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5257166.ece
i'm not comparing promiscouity in the Philippines with the western world. we know that western countries are more "liberalized" in ideas like that
-
i hardly believe blogs are sources for unbiased reports
or are you one of those, "if its on the web, it must be true"
If you don't like blogs, here is the original press release.
http://www.lambert-edwards.com/press_room/read/47
http://www.lambert-edwards.com/about_us/history
i'm not comparing promiscouity in the Philippines with the western world. we know that western countries are more "liberalized" in ideas like that
Yes I know, you were saying "i already find Filipino society very promiscous". That was only based on your belief, but comparing to other societies, we are not.
-
sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times
what language is Petra and Petros? its greek. did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek? no. they spoke Aramaic. Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros. He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock. when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language. now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine. the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael. that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy. but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock. ...
That argument is the Catholic apologist's standard answer.
I've studied that verse for a long time. It is not true that the opposing view has long been discredited.
Matthew 16:18 states:
καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος/petros), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ/petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Aramaic word Kepha/Cephas is flexible, and it can mean a boulder, a rock or a small stone. There's another Aramaic word, "shua" that specifically means a stone, although Bible scholars say the word "shua" was probably not yet available at the time the Gospels were written.
John used the Aramaic "Kepha" (rendered phonetically in Greek as "Kephas"), but he still translated it as "stone" rather than "rock", corroborating the rendition of Matthew 16:18 which referred to Peter as "stone" rather than "rock":
ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (Κηφᾶς/Kephas), which is by interpretation, A stone (Πέτρος/petros). (John 1:42, KJV)
Based on biblical usage of the word "petra", the alleged grammatical prohibition against the masculine usage of the word petra is doubtful. If that were so, then 1 Corinthians 10:4 would not have called Christ "petra" [feminine gender]:
καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (πέτρας/petras) that followed them: and that Rock (πέτρα/petra) was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4, KJV)
Another example is "sophia" (wisdom). Sophia is the feminine form, yet "sophia" was used to refer to Christ as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).
-
sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times
what language is Petra and Petros? its greek. did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek? no. they spoke Aramaic. Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros. He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock. when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language. now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine. the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael. that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy. but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock.
also, read along the Acts and all of the Epistles from the Apostles. the Church has already been established and it has structure, and that structure is the same structure similar to what the Catholic Church is today. and many times in the Bible the authority of the Church is mentioned. so if the Church was not established on Peter by Jesus, what is this Church that has authority that they mention?
I already pointed the verses that speak Jesus is the chief cornerstone --- the foundation of the church ... and not Peter. The same is in the prophetic words of the Old Testament which foresaw the coming of Messiah - not of Peter!
Further, passages have been indicated that all the apostles are in equal footing in the establishment of the church. A church of which foundation is Jesus and whose head is Jesus.
The RC heirarchy has no biblical basis because it was just derived from (whose?) traditions ... and since RC takes tradition higher than the Bible, that's where all the contradiction of RC belief and the biblical accounts comes in.
That's why, for me, if you regard tradition as your primary ground and not the Bible ... there is no point in arguing ... just don't sound as if your doctrines are grounded on the Bible of which it is not ... it is more of the papal announcements which is considered infallible, and thus, doctrine to the RC - regardless whether the Bible agree with it or not!
So its makes sense your claim that these claims have been flushed out the toilet by your traditions ... and so thus your traditions flushed out to the toilet by Biblical truths!
-
My answers in green ;)
no one is debating that issue. the seat of Peter occupied by the Pope is just the physical leadership on this earth. the doctrine in the Catholic Church as taught by Jesus and the Apostles is that the Church extends beyond earth, into heaven. that is why we have the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Communion of Saints (the oneness of believers on earth and in heaven). Jesus Christ is the overall head of the Church, he is the Head and the Church is the Body. Peter nor his successors never replaces Christ, they just lead the Church on earth and make sure that everyone stay true to the doctrines instituted by Christ. they have received the authority from Christ and this authority is important so that no one may make misleading teachings, which has been happening constantly over the years
oh, but there are tons of references
--> This has been openly exposed by Martin Luther citing biblical doctrines/passages. The pope was never figured in the New Testament.
Paul didn't start preaching until he received the authority to do so from Ananias, who is a bishop of the Church
also, Acts 1 shows how new Apostles are "ordained" into the brotherhood, when Peter and the Apostles chose Mattias to replace Judas
--> the appointment of Mattias is just to replace Judas … not to perpetuate apostleship … the qualification of apostleship necessitates that you have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry & death … and Paul qualifies as such. The subsequent generations can not be!
the Universal Church is the Catholic Church (greek Katholikos - english translation - Universal) and the dispensal of these gifts are the Sacraments of the Church, which is validly dispensed by those who inherited the authority to do so by Apostolic Succession. as is today, there are only two religions with valid Apostolic successions, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church has some validity in their succession (they have valid priests but not valid bishops)
--> The subsequent division in the Catholic (Universal) Church are more politics than religion - so we have RC (as qualifier) … apostolic succession is not a Biblical doctrine … it is just a tradition used to justify RC hierarchical organization at present
of course all of us are called to be priests, but to receive the authority as presbyters, as helpers of the bishop in sheperding the flock of Christ, we have to receive this authority. you can read in the Acts that no one just becomes a bishop or priest or deacon just because they want to. they laying of hands is important in imparting the authority from someone who has the valid authority, which they received through a succession from the Apostles themselves, who received such authority from Jesus
if this version has been invalidated, why did Peter and Paul and the other Apostles appoint presbyters? presbyters = priests
--> I undestand appointment of presbyters & bishops (church leaders), not priest, as if to officiate sacrifices (similar to old testament) … this is priest RC continue to propagate, together with their unbiblical) doctrine holy eucharist, the person who can only access holy of holies, as shown in putting those bread in a temple-like location with veil in it! …
But of course, it is perfectly fine for it to be called unbiblical … simply because tradition is more important to RC!
nope, wrong
firstly, the Church existed 20-30 years even before the first New Testament scripture was written. because the Church was established by Jesus on Peter. at the time Jesus said, "...I will build My Church". from then on, the Church of Jesus Christ began to exist, through Him and His Apostles who he then commanded to "make disciples of all nations."
the earliest that any of the new testament books were written were in 50AD, which is 20 years after Jesus Christ has died and risen and ascended into heaven. and even then, these were just letters, nothing more. it would take another 300 years before the books were compiled and canonized into the bible we have today.
and even so, there were more letters and books going around the early Church than what we have in the Bible today. so what separates the books and letters in the Bible today from those that were excluded? who's authority is it that decided the books were to be included or excluded?
nope, the letters of the Bible were not there when Christ established the Church because they weren't written yet. in fact, more than half of the New Testament is written by Paul or one of his scribes, and none of them were with Christ.
and you know why Martin Luther placed such emphasis on the Bible? because he had no authority! he wanted to take authority away from the Church and place it in a book. for 1500 years, no one believes that the Bible is the final authority. and by giving all authority to the Bible, people are now in danger of Biblio-idolatry. why? because too much emphasis, too much power is given to a book. God is more than just a book. for all of the history of Christianity and even the Jews, no one gave so much emphasis to a book. so why all of a sudden Luther came up with such an unfounded idea?
--> and here lies the crux of RC belief … tradition, of questionable origin, passed on to people … and comparing it to Biblical text will you find it tremendously wanting … simply because tradition has more weight the Biblical truths.
Even if you question at what authority is the present Bible accepted as God’s word or not in a Christian world is just another way of saying the Bible can not be taken as source of correct doctrine, and that we can not derived all our beliefs from the Bible … This is RC which I have known long ago … which propagated a lot of rituals (traditions) not known in the Bible … typically a mixture of paganistic practices wrapped with some “Christian” looks!
And this is the reason RC never, early on, wanted Bible distribution to common man, because all RC’s claims will be expose just by reading the Bible (which happened to Martin Luther).
And sensing that Bible distribution can not be stopped, it necessitated to warn their faithful not to interpret the Bible on their own way.
But in this age of ours, proclamation of the unadulterated gospel is now possible because the only thing one has to do is take time to read the Bible, and be serious at it!
-
i wouldn't attribute parenting failure to the Church. why? why do people like to pass on the failure of their parenting to anyone else? you're the parent, you take responsibility. example, a lot of emphasis on the media for violent shows that would negatively affect children. i grew up watching the violent robot anime, i didn't become a violent person. why? i attribute it to good parenting. since i was little i knew that superman was fake, so i shouldn't be trying to jump off the window to immitate him. that cartoons aren't real, so i shouldn't be trying to immitate Voltes V or Daimos or Maziner Z. if those cartoons influenced me to be a bad person, its not the fault of those who made the cartoons, its the fault of my parents who didn't teach me any better
condoms will not cut down on AIDS or unwanted births. trust me. there are still a ton of pregnant teenagers in the US and here in Canada were kids get sex education in highschool and get free contraceptives. there are still tons of STDs going around. in fact, in the US, 40% of people have Herpes. explain that. they have all these condom programs, why is it that 2 out of 5 people still have Herpes? these contraceptives are not the solution to the problems. in fact, they only introduce more problems of their own
And here should the church influence their members to be in the know ... for if the church (RC) can not sway its membership (in correct parenting) the right way, why bother the state who will influence the citizens to be protected?
IF the state have not initiated its own prerogative in sex education, how do you know the occurrence of promiscuous practices will not increase than its present numbers?
Those tons of numbers does not in any way invalidated the state's initiative - for all we know it maybe much much larger had the state not done its own mandate!
-
And here should the church influence their members to be in the know ... for if the church (RC) can not sway its membership (in correct parenting) the right way, why bother the state who will influence the citizens to be protected?
IF the state have not initiated its own prerogative in sex education, how do you know the occurrence of promiscuous practices will not increase than its present numbers?
Those tons of numbers does not in any way invalidated the state's initiative - for all we know it maybe much much larger had the state not done its own mandate!
and how does the RH bill sway people into right parenting?
like i said, most western countries have these programs for decades, and they're still in the same mess as the Philippines is.
not because people are taught to use contraceptives means they will use them. there are many things you are taught in school that you didn't use
and don't blame the Church. how many people don't even pay attention to the priest when he's making his sermons? most are daydreaming or tapping away on their cellphones. and if the Church tries to be more proactive, people like you protest that you are being forced into something you do not want to do.
-
That argument is the Catholic apologist's standard answer.
I've studied that verse for a long time. It is not true that the opposing view has long been discredited.
Matthew 16:18 states:
καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος/petros), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ/petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Aramaic word Kepha/Cephas is flexible, and it can mean a boulder, a rock or a small stone. There's another Aramaic word, "shua" that specifically means a stone, although Bible scholars say the word "shua" was probably not yet available at the time the Gospels were written.
John used the Aramaic "Kepha" (rendered phonetically in Greek as "Kephas"), but he still translated it as "stone" rather than "rock", corroborating the rendition of Matthew 16:18 which referred to Peter as "stone" rather than "rock":
ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (Κηφᾶς/Kephas), which is by interpretation, A stone (Πέτρος/petros). (John 1:42, KJV)
Based on biblical usage of the word "petra", the alleged grammatical prohibition against the masculine usage of the word petra is doubtful. If that were so, then 1 Corinthians 10:4 would not have called Christ "petra" [feminine gender]:
καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (πέτρας/petras) that followed them: and that Rock (πέτρα/petra) was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4, KJV)
Another example is "sophia" (wisdom). Sophia is the feminine form, yet "sophia" was used to refer to Christ as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).
sophia was never used as a name for Jesus. its just an attribute
Peter can never be called Petra by name because he is male
you're missing the point there
all those other attributed given to Jesus are attributes, it was never his name. therefore they don't have to be gender specific. throughout the Bible, God has been given Feminine attributes, but never was He called God the Mother, its always The Father. because The Father is His name.
if petra is used to describe Simon as an attribute, then yes. but Simon was renamed into Peter, thus Petra is unacceptable. its not an attribute anymore but a name
-
aHobbit, please don't put your reply into the quotes because its hard for me to reply to them afterwards
Martin Luther seeked to justify his new church, and therefore he had to find ways to discredit a Church that has existed for 1500 years.
even by schism, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have existed 500 years before Luther, but they never came up with what Luther has. why? because both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches carry the tradition faithfully from the time of the Apostles. what Luther did was disregard that history and threw it out and kept only what only agrees with his point of view. its easy to say that Luther was right with what he has to prove it, because he basically establish a belief that would disregard any other fact from other credible sources.
but the Apostleship did perpetuate. Saul became Paul and is an Apostle. even Mark eventually earned the rank of Apostle.
Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus. he never saw Jesus preach on earth. he never lived in Jerusalem. and even though he received a vision from Jesus, he still had to be baptized and receive the laying of hands from Ananias, who is a bishop
the subsequent division of the Catholic Church into the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches was due to some doctrinal disagreements. but those disagreements are not as major as the doctrines introduced by the reformists. essentially the Catholics and Orthodox still remain true to the Apostle's Creed, and still carry the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. that is why they are the valid Church. where as the Protestants threw away the history of the Church, which disregarded what the Apostles actually taught
Holy Eucharist is biblical. John 6 speaks mostly about this where Jesus explicitly says that only those who eat His flesh and drink His blood will gain eternal life. and the breaking of the bread is done throughout Acts and mentioned in some of Paul's epistles. also, even ancient Christian artifacts have revealed that in the center of Christian gatherings back then was a dinner table. because Christ instructed the Apostles to do the Eucharist in memory of Him
also, it seems you don't understand much about the roles of Bishops, Preists/Presbyters and Deacons. Priests are essentially the helpers of Bishops. Deacons are proclaimers of the Gospel and helpers of the priests. Priests are there in the stead of the Bishop, but themselves have no authority over teachings. they can't decide to change practices on their own as this authority comes from the bishop. the bishop is the only one who has authority (the Pope is himself a Bishop). this is the same way how it was in the first century onwards. in fact, if you read the writings of those who we call the Church Fathers (early centure bishops right after the apostles), you will see that all the practices and traditions has been the same since then until today (with minor improvements of course)
the reason Luther outlawed tradition because if you look to tradition, it would instantly invalidate all the lies he has propagated. tradition has been very important since the past, with Abraham, with Moses and all the Jews all the way to the time of Jesus. in fact, nothing in the history of Christianity and Judaism ever threw out tradition until the time of the Reformation. why? simply because Luther needed to validate himself. or to be more accurate, Luther needed to remove any evidence that will invalidate him.
tradition has always been there. Paul himself told in his letters that people should stick to the teachings AND TRADITIONS that he and the other Apostles have taught them. and these are in the matters of questioning what to do. because at that point the people were confused on what to do and what to follow, and Paul was away. so who should they ask? Paul gave them a straight answer, teachings and traditions. if traditions were to be done away with, why did Paul tell the people this?
Martin Luther you're forgetting is a Catholic Priest. he always had access to the Bible
the Church never thought of distribution of the Bible because the Bible is not central to Christian faith. imagine, there were Christians for 325 years before the Bible was made. even the Jews who memorize scripture, never had copies of scripture at home. the rolls of scriptures were kept in the temple and the synagogues, not in their homes. so the Church had the same practice. scripture were kept in the Church, not in people's homes. people needed to learn about Jesus from teachings from their elders, those who have been taught to teach and have received the authority to teach.
and so now you can see what great evil Martin Luther has brought to the world. everyone who picks up a bible thinks hes instantly a bible scholar. this is why there's roughly 33,000 different denominations of Protestants in the world. each one with their own different interpretation of the teachings of Christ. but there are not 33,000 different teachings, there is one.
-
COPIED
Rocks and Stones
Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:
- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
- The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
- Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
- That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.
Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.
It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?
The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:
“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”
So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!
But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!
Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”
There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.
So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).
"This rock" is Peter's confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!
[/list]
-
Peter of the Bible
1. has a wife
And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. - MATTHEW 8:14
It is biblical that a bishop (pastor, deacon, priest, minister, head of the church) to have a wife.
1 Timothy 3:2-5 (KJV)
(2)A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
-
the subsequent division of the Catholic Church into the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches was due to some doctrinal disagreements. but those disagreements are not as major as the doctrines introduced by the reformists.
Not only some doctrinal disagreements.
The scism was a long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarrelled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque.
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread.
essentially the Catholics and Orthodox still remain true to the Apostle's Creed, and still carry the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. that is why they are the valid Church.
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe ... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'.
-
... you're missing the point there
all those other attributed given to Jesus are attributes, it was never his name. therefore they don't have to be gender specific. throughout the Bible, God has been given Feminine attributes, but never was He called God the Mother, its always The Father. because The Father is His name.
if petra is used to describe Simon as an attribute, then yes. but Simon was renamed into Peter, thus Petra is unacceptable. its not an attribute anymore but a name
He was not renamed petros or Peter. He was renamed Cephas or "Kephas".
Cephas can mean stone or rock. But Paul clarified that Jesus meant "stone" rather than "rock":
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (John 1:42, KJV)
It is not true that only names are gender-specific, and adjectives are not. That may be true in English, but in languages that have gender-specific adjectives, the adjective's gender should agree with the noun's gender.
In Spanish, "hombre bueno" is "good man"; "mujer buena" is "good woman". In English, both are "good"; in Spanish, one is "bueno", the other is "buena". Bueno and buena are not names, they are adjectives. But the gender of the adjectives must correspond with the gender of the nouns they modify.
In Greek, "bonus" is a "good man", "bona" is a "good woman". In English, both are "good"; in Greek, one is "bonus", the other is "bona". In Greek, "sophos" is a wise man, "sophia" is a "wise woman". In English, both are "wise"; in Greek, one is "sophos", the other is "sophia".
In the Bible, personalities are named according to their attribute. In Exodus 34:14, "Jealous" is one of the names of God, not just an attribute:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (KJV)
-
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so.
That Peter was allegedly the "First Pope" is a foundational doctrine of Catholicism. That's why they will never agree to a contrary interpretation of Matthew 16:18.
Peter was an apostle to the Jews. But it was Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles.
The truth of the matter is that it was James, not Peter, who first presided at the Council at Jerusalem. At the Council, Peter, Barnabas and Paul spoke first. Then, to finish the discussion, it was James who gave his judgment:
When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. ...
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:13, 14, 19 & 20, NIV)
In fact, Paul once rebuked Peter in Antioch "to his face", and in public, because Peter was "clearly in the wrong":
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14, NIV)
That's certainly not how one would address a supposedly infallible Pope.
Who was right, Peter or Paul? To settle the matter, the Jerusalem Council was held afterwards. In Acts 15, the Council confirmed that Paul's teaching was correct.
-
Peter of the Bible
1. has a wife
And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. - MATTHEW 8:14
It is biblical that a bishop (pastor, deacon, priest, minister, head of the church) to have a wife.
1 Timothy 3:2-5 (KJV)
(2)A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Paul and John on the other hand are celebates
and it is Biblical that Paul instructed that those who serve the Lord, he prefers them to be celibate
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife.
also, Paul's letter to Timothy never said that a Bishop MUST be married, but if he's married he must be of one wife. because in Greece back then it is common for someone to be polygamous or to marry, divorce and remarry, similar to today
-
He was not renamed petros or Peter. He was renamed Cephas or "Kephas".
Cephas can mean stone or rock. But Paul clarified that Jesus meant "stone" rather than "rock":
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (John 1:42, KJV)
It is not true that only names are gender-specific, and adjectives are not. That may be true in English, but in languages that have gender-specific adjectives, the adjective's gender should agree with the noun's gender.
In Spanish, "hombre bueno" is "good man"; "mujer buena" is "good woman". In English, both are "good"; in Spanish, one is "bueno", the other is "buena". Bueno and buena are not names, they are adjectives. But the gender of the adjectives must correspond with the gender of the nouns they modify.
In Greek, "bonus" is a "good man", "bona" is a "good woman". In English, both are "good"; in Greek, one is "bonus", the other is "bona". In Greek, "sophos" is a wise man, "sophia" is a "wise woman". In English, both are "wise"; in Greek, one is "sophos", the other is "sophia".
In the Bible, personalities are named according to their attribute. In Exodus 34:14, "Jealous" is one of the names of God, not just an attribute:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (KJV)
well, Greek is not Spanish nor English. those are the rules of Greek. you can't really compare it to the rules of Spanish
and the KJV is a Protestant Bible, the translation is obviously biased
here is the various translations in different versions, to obtained a more unbiased view
http://bible.cc/john/1-42.htm
-
COPIED
Rocks and Stones
Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:
- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
- The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
- Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
- That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.
Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.
It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?
The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:
“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”
So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!
But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!
Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”
There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.
So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).
"This rock" is Peter's confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!
[/list]
Peter's papacy doesn't rely solely on Peter being the rock, but the fact that Jesus gave him the keys of heaven (ie, the authority)
-
What I find interesting about the arguments here is that when convenient, historical and cultural context is placed on certain passages of the Bible in order to justify how the Church -- or more generally, the so called religious -- interprets it.
But when it is also convenient, the interpretation of the Bible is absolute despite attempts to introduce the same cultural context in order to show that there is latitude in interpreting other biblical passages.
-
What I find interesting about the arguments here is that when convenient, historical and cultural context is placed on certain passages of the Bible in order to justify how the Church -- or more generally, the so called religious -- interprets it.
But when it is also convenient, the interpretation of the Bible is absolute despite attempts to introduce the same cultural context in order to show that there is latitude in interpreting other biblical passages.
well how can you remove historical or cultural context from the writings when a particular culture or era would greatly influence what is being meant?
its like saying, if someone in the Philippines right now talks about salvage, people think its about murder. whereas in all other english speaking nations, salvage means rescuing or retrieving something. so if you take out the Philippine cultural context in salvage, it becomes totally different and people will not understand what is being meant.
to think that Scripture can be easily understood today in today's languages is ignoring the history of it. language evolves very quickly. you don't see Pinoys use words like bagets or jeprox today, both of which are common 20-30 years ago. what more something written 2000 years ago?
-
COPIED
Rocks and Stones
Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:
- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
- The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
- Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
- That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.
Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.
It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?
The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:
“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”
So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!
But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!
Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”
There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.
So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).
"This rock" is Peter's confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!
[/list]
this article is filled with flawed assumptions
first, its arguing that the manuscript was written in Greek and therefore Jesus spoke in Greek? first, when was the manuscript written? was it written at the same time Jesus spoke those words? no. it was written at least 30 years after Jesus spoke those words
second, who was the target audience? was it the Jews? no, it was the Greeks. so why are you going to write in Aramaic when that language is mostly spoken in Judea whilst the Gospels were being written for people throughout the Mediterranean.
think of it this way. say Jesus was Filipino and the Apostles were Filipinos. would they talk to each other in english? no. now, the Apostles went throughout the world and they want to teach the Americans and the Canadians and the Australians and even the Europeans. universally, the language is English, as was Greek in the 1st century. so why would they write something in their native tongue when only those of their homeland can understand? the people of Corinthia, Thessalonica, Rome, etc., most if not all of them do not speak Aramaic. but they all know Greek.
to disregard that fact is disregarding the history within the Bible. that that is how it is in their time
-
Not only some doctrinal disagreements.
The scism was a long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarrelled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque.
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread.
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe ... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'.
the Filioque is a doctrine
the issue here is, if the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, what relationship does he have with the Son? and this opens a whole new heresy, is the Holy Spirit Equal to the Son? greater? lesser? how come Jesus can send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father?
as for the Papacy, the key issue here is scripture. in scripture is it said that Jesus gave they keys to Peter. the Orthodox believes the keys were given to all the apostles, though nowhere in scripture was it written.
also, there are many instances where Peter were referred to for authority (Council of Jerusalem where they made a decisioin of Gentiles were to be circumcised or not) and Peter has been always named first among the Apostles.
fasting and use of what type of bread is a non-issue. the Catholic Church recognizes universal traditions taught differently by the Apostles in the early churches they established. generally eastern churches uses leavened bread, including Eastern Catholic Churches. the Latin church decided to follow the Jewish tradition, since the last supper was celebrated during the feast of the unleavened bread. but its a non-issue really as its not a doctrine, but rather a matter of practice and tradition
-
well how can you remove historical or cultural context from the writings when a particular culture or era would greatly influence what is being meant?
its like saying, if someone in the Philippines right now talks about salvage, people think its about murder. whereas in all other english speaking nations, salvage means rescuing or retrieving something. so if you take out the Philippine cultural context in salvage, it becomes totally different and people will not understand what is being meant.
to think that Scripture can be easily understood today in today's languages is ignoring the history of it. language evolves very quickly. you don't see Pinoys use words like bagets or jeprox today, both of which are common 20-30 years ago. what more something written 2000 years ago?
Exactly! I agree. That's why I find a disconnect when certain scriptures are also interpreted LITERALLY and when a certain cultural context is applied to it, is immediately dismissed as unimportant. Putting context on scripture arbitrarily is a great disservice to how the Bible should actually be understood. You said it yourself, it needs to have context.
-
the Filioque is a doctrine
the issue here is, if the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, what relationship does he have with the Son? and this opens a whole new heresy, is the Holy Spirit Equal to the Son? greater? lesser? how come Jesus can send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father?
as for the Papacy, the key issue here is scripture. in scripture is it said that Jesus gave they keys to Peter. the Orthodox believes the keys were given to all the apostles, though nowhere in scripture was it written.
Now you are bashing the Orthodox church, but in previous posting:
essentially the Catholics and Orthodox still remain true to the Apostle's Creed, and still carry the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. that is why they are the valid Church.
-
... and the KJV is a Protestant Bible, the translation is obviously biased
here is the various translations in different versions, to obtained a more unbiased view
http://bible.cc/john/1-42.htm
The King James Version is not a Protestant Bible, and it is not biased. Although it is not perfect, the King James Version is one of the most accurate English versions because it is a meticulous word-for-word translation from the original languages.
Be that as it may, I do not solely rely on translations. You might recall that I already posted the original Greek of John 1:42 previously:
ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
In the original Greek, John said Cephas is, by interpretation, petros, not petra. The King James rendition of that verse is accurate.
-
and who says the world's population needs to be curtailed?
while China, India and the Philippines are crying because of their population boom, the Western world is worried because they do not have enough population to support funding for their soon-to-be retirees
the problem is not over population. its just population distribution
Horizon has a documentary worth checking out.
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
Answer: not very many more, says David Attenborough.
In 1950, the world's population was 2.5bn; today, it's 7bn; and by 2050, it's going to be 9bn. Beyond that, our poor old planet is going to have serious problems sustaining us all. And when you factor in all the climate-change stuff, you've got serious problems. The temperature goes up, resources dwindle, the sea rises, land disappears, and there are more and more of us to cram in. Life on earth is going to feel increasingly like one huge and terrifying game of musical chairs.
In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.
While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.
Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth.
-
... as for the Papacy, the key issue here is scripture. in scripture is it said that Jesus gave they keys to Peter. the Orthodox believes the keys were given to all the apostles, though nowhere in scripture was it written.
also, there are many instances where Peter were referred to for authority (Council of Jerusalem where they made a decisioin of Gentiles were to be circumcised or not) and Peter has been always named first among the Apostles. ...
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus said he will give (in the future) the keys to Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NIV)
Catholic doctrine interprets the keys to mean the power to bind and to loose: Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him ... (Catholic Encyclopedia).
But in Matthew 18:18, speaking to all His disciples, Jesus gave the "power of binding and loosing" to all of His disciples (including Peter): I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (NIV)
Jesus was speaking to all disciples, not to Peter only. Notice that in His lengthy answer starting from Mat. 18:2, Jesus was talking to all disciples, because He was answering all of them: At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (Matthew 18:1, NIV)
Peter did not remain "first among the apostles". It is true that he was the first in the list of original apostles. But in the first Church Council, which took place in Jerusalem (not in Rome with Peter as the head), it was James who was the leader. It was James who had the final word on the issue being discussed: When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:13;19, NIV) In Galatians 2:9, Paul confirms James' leadership by listing him first in his enumeration of the pillars: James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. (NIV)
Before Peter agreed with Paul's view at the Jerusalem Council, Paul previously rebuked Peter in Antioch "to his face", and in public, because Peter was "clearly in the wrong":
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14, NIV)
This passage demonstrates that Peter was not occupying the position of an infallible Pope. It also shows that Paul considered Peter as an equal, with Peter having jurisdiction over the Jews, and Paul having jurisdiction over the Gentiles.
Thus, Paul says: For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. ... They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (Galatians 2:8;9, NIV)
Clearly, if Peter's apostleship did not even extend to the Gentiles, then he could not have been "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church".
-
+1
and Peter never set a foot in ROme.
-
Actually, Catholic doctrine misinterprets Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
Bible versions usually mistranslate the two verses by rendering the perfect tenses of δεδεμένον (dedemenon), λελυμένον (lelumenon), δεδεμένα (dedemena), and λελυμένα (lelumena) erroneously into simple future tenses.
For those verses, Young's Literal Translation is the most accurate rendition I've seen, although its literal rendition unavoidably produces awkward sentence constructions:
and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. (Matthew 16:19)
Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. (Matthew 18:18)
The International Standard Version is more understandable. Slightly less accurate, but still good translations:
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
I tell you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven. (Matthew 18:18)
For these verses, a mistake in the tenses will lead to a totally different interpretation.
-
Horizon has a documentary worth checking out.
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
Answer: not very many more, says David Attenborough.
In 1950, the world's population was 2.5bn; today, it's 7bn; and by 2050, it's going to be 9bn. Beyond that, our poor old planet is going to have serious problems sustaining us all. And when you factor in all the climate-change stuff, you've got serious problems. The temperature goes up, resources dwindle, the sea rises, land disappears, and there are more and more of us to cram in. Life on earth is going to feel increasingly like one huge and terrifying game of musical chairs.
In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.
While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.
Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth.
I doubt if they'll believe this. Hindi kasi galing sa Bible.
-
But it's Sir David Attenborough! Although thinking about it, he's an evolutionist so yeah, they should take the information with a grain of salt.
-
Horizon has a documentary worth checking out.
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
Answer: not very many more, says David Attenborough.
In 1950, the world's population was 2.5bn; today, it's 7bn; and by 2050, it's going to be 9bn. Beyond that, our poor old planet is going to have serious problems sustaining us all. And when you factor in all the climate-change stuff, you've got serious problems. The temperature goes up, resources dwindle, the sea rises, land disappears, and there are more and more of us to cram in. Life on earth is going to feel increasingly like one huge and terrifying game of musical chairs.
In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.
While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.
Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth.
i believe in this... that the temperature goes up.... if what he observed is the result of entropy law.... well i believe his observation... (by the way its in the bible: the earth will be destroyed sa pamamagitan ng apoy).
from a perfect creation of earth to disorder/chaos.
the end of the world: fire.
-
But it's Sir David Attenborough! Although thinking about it, he's an evolutionist so yeah, they should take the information with a grain of salt.
He's also an atheist.
-
i believe in this... that the temperature goes up.... if what he observed is the result of entropy law.... well i believe his observation...
Sir, with all due respect, entropy tends to make an isolated or closed system reach equilibrium. Chaos and fire are directly opposed to equilibrium (they imply an energy gradient, which means there's still room for energy to disperse, leading to an increase in entropy).
(by the way its in the bible: the earth will be destroyed sa pamamagitan ng apoy).
from a perfect creation of earth to disorder/chaos.
the end of the world: fire.
Meaning, when the Earth/Universe eventually succumbs to entropy, it'll die of heat death, not of chaos and fire.
-
The Vatican's wealth was estimated by bankers to be between $10 to $15 billion.
In 1965.
Time magazine article pala ito in 1965?
Roman Catholics: The Vatican's Wealth
Friday, Feb. 26, 1965
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
Naalala ko tuloy yung Godfather III:
Scandal at the Pope's Bank
By Barry Kalb; Alexander L. Taylor III.
Monday, Jul. 26, 1982
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922953,00.html#ixzz0hppZ8DwZ
-
Horizon has a documentary worth checking out.
In 1950, the world's population was 2.5bn; today, it's 7bn; and by 2050, it's going to be 9bn. Beyond that, our poor old planet is going to have serious problems sustaining us all. And when you factor in all the climate-change stuff, you've got serious problems. The temperature goes up, resources dwindle, the sea rises, land disappears, and there are more and more of us to cram in. Life on earth is going to feel increasingly like one huge and terrifying game of musical chairs.
[/i]
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilence, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." (Mat. 24 v.7-8)
greenhouse effects
sea rises
el nino/el nina
earthquakes
environment disaster
kagutuman...
all these: signs of the end of the world...
-
all these: signs of the end of the world...
Uhuh. And Christians have been saying that, since, well, the 1st century AD.
Even Jesus himself said:
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."
(Matthew 23:36)
But in the next Chapter, Jesus says otherwise:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
(Matthew 24:36)
-
Uhuh. And Christians have been saying that, since, well, the 1st century AD.
Even Jesus himself said:
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."
(Matthew 23:36)
But in the next Chapter, Jesus says otherwise:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
(Matthew 24:36)
you are right. no one reall knows when... but the signs are meant for you to believe that there is God. it was meant for us to be ready for the coming of the Lord.
-
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilence, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." (Mat. 24 v.7-8)
greenhouse effects
sea rises
el nino/el nina
earthquakes
environment disaster
kagutuman...
all these: signs of the end of the world...
Erm, the El Nino/El Nina phenomenon is a climatological pattern that's been happening for thousands of years (di ko na sasabihin na millions dahil baka magdebate pa tayo).
Saying that it is a sign of the endtimes is like saying that typhoons are also a sign of the end of the world.
Don't get too excited that the end of the world is very near. It's likely going to take millions of years before it happens. Just watch 2012 for your doomsday fix. :)
-
well, no human knows 100% with certainty when and how.
-
Exactly, that's why there's really no reason to keep saying "the end is near" or that "it's a sign that the end of the world is coming."
-
goes the other way too when one reads signs
-
goes the other way too when one reads signs
Then you've just contradicted yourself if you just said awhile ago no human knows. ::)
-
Then you've just contradicted yourself if you just said awhile ago no human knows. ::)
no.. no one knows, hence, you can not deny any statement as you too do not know 100% with certainty
-
You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding what I posted. Makikibasa na lang po ulit. I trust you'll get it at some point. :)
-
Exactly, that's why there's really no reason to keep saying "the end is near" or that "it's a sign that the end of the world is coming."
It's near if you convert the paleontologic age of earth to 4,000 years...that's a factor of 4,000/4,500,000,000
Which reminds me, I recently watched a doc about possible ways to end the world
1. Yellowstone Park eruption
2. Worldwide spread of deadly virus
3. All out nuclear war
4. The Large Hadron Collider creating a small black hole
5. A black hole that comes dangerously close to earth
6. Alien invasion
7. Meteor collision
8. 6 degrees of average temperature increase
On a personal note, I have been preparing for the big one in Tokyo since I came here in 1990. The Japanese have been preparing for that since before I was born.
-
Exactly, that's why there's really no reason to keep saying "the end is near" or that "it's a sign that the end of the world is coming."
for you there is no reason... on the opposite side others see there is reason to remind "the end is near" based on what signs they see or believe ... no side has 100% certainty to refute the other.. only time will tell when and how
it is so simple.. i hope you got the point
-
It's near if you convert the paleontologic age of earth to 4,000 years...that's a factor of 4,000/4,500,000,000
Which reminds me, I recently watched a doc about possible ways to end the world
1. Yellowstone Park eruption
2. Worldwide spread of deadly virus
3. All out nuclear war
4. The Large Hadron Collider creating a small black hole
5. A black hole that comes dangerously close to earth
6. Alien invasion
7. Meteor collision
8. 6 degrees of average temperature increase
On a personal note, I have been preparing for the big one in Tokyo since I came here in 1990. The Japanese have been preparing for that since before I was born.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:3qirEadaeeiqCM:http://closedstacks.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/thumbs-up.jpg)
Exactamundo.
I've been hearing doomsayers ever since I was in catholic school. Even the priests who were part of the group that began the indoctrination for my group who was about to enter priesthood said much the same thing. The visuals they used though were the TV movie "The Day After" and the Cold War scare. That was back in the late 80s.
Then you've got loonies like Father Tropa back in the 70s.
-
karaniwan nauuna ang "repent", the end is near!
then, "recruitment" na para ma-save, sumapi sa kanila ;D
-
Then kapag hindi natuloy ang doomsday predictions, they were saved by the power of prayers daw, or some divine intervention (nakasulat ba sa Bible yon? that doomsday can be "postponed"?)
-
It's near if you convert the paleontologic age of earth to 4,000 years...that's a factor of 4,000/4,500,000,000
Which reminds me, I recently watched a doc about possible ways to end the world
1. Yellowstone Park eruption signs: end of the world
2. Worldwide spread of deadly virus
3. All out nuclear war
4. The Large Hadron Collider creating a small black hole if this will create fire: ok
5. A black hole that comes dangerously close to earth
6. Alien invasion rapture - when a living true christian will be caught up to heaven
7. Meteor collision if this will create fire: ok
8. 6 degrees of average temperature increase if this will create fire: ok
On a personal note, I have been preparing for the big one in Tokyo since I came here in 1990. The Japanese have been preparing for that since before I was born.
end of the world::: destruction will come by fire
buti pa ang Japan... alam nila may end of the world...
signs are/were everywhere... those signs were meant for us to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.
-
end of the world::: destruction will come by fire
buti pa ang Japan... alam nila may end of the world...
signs are/were everywhere... those signs were meant for us to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.
may timeframe ka? o open-ended?
baka abo na ang buto nung ibang nagpredict nung 70s, 2010 nandito pa tayo
-
karaniwan nauuna ang "repent", the end is near!
then, "recruitment" na para ma-save, sumapi sa kanila ;D
again: there is no salvation in religion.
a man can be save with or without religion
-
again: there is no salvation in religion.
a man can be save with or without religion
pero dapat BORN-AGAIN muna? ::)
___
may timeframe ba ang endoftheworld or open-ended?
-
end of the world::: destruction will come by fire
buti pa ang Japan... alam nila may end of the world...
signs are/were everywhere... those signs were meant for us to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.
You sure it hasn't happened yet? Di tayo nakasama ;D
-
may timeframe ka? o open-ended?
baka abo na ang buto nung ibang nagpredict nung 70s, 2010 nandito pa tayo
that's the essence of 'surprise'.
no one really knows when... anytime puwedeng mangyari at ang mga handa sila lang ang magbebenefit...
kaya nga 'surprise'....
"it will come like a thief in the night"
-
that's the essence of 'surprise'.
no one really knows when... anytime puwedeng mangyari at ang mga handa sila lang ang magbebenefit...
kaya nga 'surprise'....
"it will come like a thief in the night"
surprise, eh abo na nga ang mga buto nung mga nagpredict 70s 80s! ;D
ang surpresa - si kamatayan!
-
You sure it hasn't happened yet? Di tayo nakasama ;D
Yan ang surprise. Di pala nakasama. ;D
-
@dpogs
pakisagot naman- yung post - yes or no lang para simple
pero dapat BORN-AGAIN muna? (hindi partylist Bayad este Bayan Muna ha)
-
pero dapat BORN-AGAIN muna? ::)
___
may timeframe ba ang endoftheworld or open-ended?
paano natin i-define ang salitang born-again?
"born-again" kadalasang tawag sa pentecostal denomination (those who speak in tounges, holy laughter, and the likes)
or
"born-again" by the spirit. pinawalang-sala. a true christian (kahit walang religion)
-
paano natin i-define ang salitang born-again?
"born-again" kadalasang tawag sa pentecostal denomination (those who speak in tounges, holy laughter, and the likes)
or
"born-again" by the spirit. pinawalang-sala. a true christian (kahit walang religion)
you tell me...
pagpaumanhin mo pero sa hinaba-haba ng mga posts dito, palagay ko na yan ang pinapatunguhan mo- true christian/born-again/ salvation. buti pa direchuhin mo na lang na ikaw, bilang "true christian" ay masasagip at ang mga hindi "true christian" ay mapupunta sa impyerno.
-
you tell me...
pagpaumanhin mo pero sa hinaba-haba ng mga posts dito, palagay ko na yan ang pinapatunguhan mo- true christian/born-again/ salvation. buti pa direchuhin mo na lang na ikaw, bilang "true christian" ay masasagip at ang mga hindi "true christian" ay mapupunta sa impyerno.
hmmm... nope... we want you to come with us... thats why as much as we can... the best as we can... we share and explains to you the way of salvation... how to become a true christian (not a professing christian)...
again: religion, joining a church, good works... these are not the way to salvation. salvation is our personal relationship with Christ.
now: regarding sa end of the world: it is a surprise just like death.
no one know when we will die... kaya nga habang may buhay inihahanda natin lahat...
- kinabukasan ng mga anak natin
- insurance policy natin
- legacy natin
- lahat sinisiguro natin bago tayo mamatay kasi anytime puwede tayong mamatay (di lang natin alam kung kelan)
and yet.... may nakalimutan tayong paghandaan - after life natin. where we will spend our eternity?
-
hmmm... nope... we want you to come with us... thats why as much as we can... the best as we can... we share and explains to you the way of salvation... how to become a true christian (not a professing christian)...
again: religion, joining a church, good works... these are not the way to salvation. salvation is our personal relationship with Christ.
now: regarding sa end of the world: it is a surprise just like death.
no one know when we will die... kaya nga habang may buhay inihahanda natin lahat...
- kinabukasan ng mga anak natin
- insurance policy natin
- legacy natin
- lahat sinisiguro natin bago tayo mamatay kasi anytime puwede tayong mamatay (di lang natin alam kung kelan)
and yet.... may nakalimutan tayong paghandaan - after life natin. where we will spend our eternity?
you're telling me that you dont belong to any church? that you dont attend (sunday) service? aw common...
-
you're telling me that you dont belong to any church? that you dont attend (sunday) service? aw common...
again: salvation doesnt involve any membership in the church.
we are speaking about salvation... not membership sa kung anong denomination man yan...
-
again: salvation doesnt involve any membership in the church.
we are speaking about salvation... not membership sa kung anong denomination man yan...
x2 !!! 8)
-
dpogs,
What's your religion? Di na ako nakikipag-debate. Tinatanong ko lang talaga.
-
Teka muna, kala ko ba the ALAM nyong end of the world is near ...so paano naging surprise yon?
Oh btw, scientists describe earth's destruction by black hole as "spaghettified" - no fire, just like going through a noodle maker.
-
again: salvation doesnt involve any membership in the church.
we are speaking about salvation... not membership sa kung anong denomination man yan...
o iniwasan mo naman sagutin kung miembro ka ng anong sekta/denominasyon/simbahan. at
ALLAH GOD YAHWEH judges. HE decides who's saved or not. its not for you to tell us here that you are saved. wait till judgment day. huwag mo pangunahan ang Diyos
sabihin mo yan sa hudyo o muslim ;D
-
hmmm... nope... we want you to come with us... thats why as much as we can... the best as we can... we share and explains to you the way of salvation... how to become a true christian (not a professing christian)...
These are the kinds of posts that make me really enjoy reading this thread.
To emphasize the juiciest line -- "We want you to come with us". Hanep talaga.
-
dpogs,
What's your religion? Di na ako nakikipag-debate. Tinatanong ko lang talaga.
sir
it seems dumidistansiya siya, ina-isolate para di matukoy. matagal na rin naitanong sa kanya yan.
-
One more question Dpogs, what if, nagugunaw na ang mundo and then I had a chance at that instance to proclaim, "sasapi ako sa pananampalataya ni Dpogs". Ok lang yon? Or meron deadline to join? Just curious ne. Wag mo masamain yung tanong.
Kase maski sa movies, you'd see the main characters (the good guys) reciting The Lord's Prayer kapag imminent na yung death. Will that work in your belief?
-
Teka muna, kala ko ba the ALAM nyong end of the world is near ...so paano naging surprise yon?
parang magnanakaw yan.... alam natin may magnanakaw sa gabi... pero kung anong araw at oras siya magnanakaw di natin alam...
same also sa end of the world... alam natin malapit nang magunaw ang mundo (kung ang nagpredict nito nagsabi noong unang panahon pa how much more mas malapit tayo ngayon).... pero ang araw at oras hindi natin alam....
Oh btw, scientists describe earth's destruction by black hole as "spaghettified" - no fire, just like going through a noodle maker.
and then... alisin na natin ang possibility na magunaw ang mundo sa pamamagitan ng black hole... because earth will be destroyed by fire.
-
fire and brimstone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone
__
from the net>
http://www.answering-christianity.com/que12.htm
How will Allah Almighty Judge us in the Day of Judgement? How does Allah Almighty see the sin between man and man
Conclusion:
Every little atom of good and evil an individual makes in life will be recorded for him, and he shall see it in the Day of Judgement. Allah Almighty will then make His ultimate decision for that person on whether he shall go to hell or to heaven.
___
http://theauthenticbase.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/ahadeeth-of-tawheed-prompting-a-dying-person-to-say-the-shahaahdah/
-
Ano ang ibig mong sabihin sa "malapit nang magunaw ang mundo"? You've just given me a time referrent, which is "near" (english of "malapit" if I have translated it correctly).
-
parang magnanakaw yan.... alam natin may magnanakaw sa gabi... pero kung anong araw at oras siya magnanakaw di natin alam...
same also sa end of the world... alam natin malapit nang magunaw ang mundo (kung ang nagpredict nito nagsabi noong unang panahon pa how much more mas malapit tayo ngayon).... pero ang araw at oras hindi natin alam....
Dpogs, ikaw at yung ka-grupo mo ang siguradong malapit nang magunaw ang mundo. Sa kabilang panig, naniniwala man kami na the end of time will eventually come, eh we don't know when. We just want to live a good life na may compassion sa kapwa...and we dont even want to judge other people's chances to go to heaven.
Kung yung nag-predict nito nagsabi noong unang panahon pa, SYEMPRE, mas malapit na nga dapat dahil ilang taon/siglo na dumaan. Parang style Pinoy productivity yan eh...kelan deadline?...malapit na...tanungin mo ulit after a year..mas malapit na...so kelan talaga?...basta lumalapit na dapat...matatapos at matatapos din pagdating ng panahon ;)
-
To emphasize the juiciest line -- "We want you to come with us". Hanep talaga.
natumbok mo! ;D
_______________
sayang walang kasapi ng ibang relihiyon para malaman natin ang pananaw nila.
sa mga interesado, impormasyon mula sa internet >
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/204/?gclid=CPGQiZKasKACFQkwpAodew_CUQ
How to Convert to Islam and Become a Muslim
The Holy Quran and Hadeeth (prophetic sayings) both stress the importance of following Islam. God states:
“...The only religion in the sight of God is Islam...” (Quran 3:19)
In another verse of the Holy Quran, God states:
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the Hellfire).” (Quran 3:85)
In another saying, Muhammad, the Prophet of God, said:
“Whoever testifies that there in none worthy of being worshipped but God, Who has no partner, and that Muhammad is His slave and Prophet, and that Jesus is the Slave of God, His Prophet, and His word[1] which He bestowed in Mary and a spirit created from Him; and that Paradise (Heaven) is true, and that the Hellfire is true, God will eventually admit him into Paradise, according to his deeds.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)
The Prophet of God, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, also reported:
“Indeed God has forbidden to reside eternally in Hell the person who says: “I testify that none has the right to worship except Allah (God),’ seeking thereby the Face of God.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)
-
Dpogs, ikaw at yung ka-grupo mo ang siguradong malapit nang magunaw ang mundo. Sa kabilang panig, naniniwala man kami na the end of time will eventually come, eh we don't know when. We just want to live a good life na may compassion sa kapwa...and we dont even want to judge other people's chances to go to heaven.[/s]
there is no such "chances to go to heaven". heaven (or salvation) is not a chance... it is a gift. we just need to receive it.
"going to heaven" is One Way. and we must decide by ourselves if we want to take that Road.
we care too much of our life here in earth,
and yet we dont care about our souls...
if we really care for those people around us... then start telling them whats wrong with them... and if they knew what is wrong with them... start telling them the good news - inspite of our wrongs (sins etc) God is faithful to forgive us... God said : "Come now, and let us reason together though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
-
So, for you, walang predestination? Free will lang talaga?
-
So, for you, walang predestination? Free will lang talaga?
it was already explained sa thread under predestination.
please read also their explanation of unforgivable sin : blasphemy of the holy spirit.
-
it was already explained sa thread under predestination.
please read also their explanation of unforgivable sin : blasphemy of the holy spirit.
Ang gulo na nung thread na yun e. I'm not after their explanation. I'm after yours. Yes or no lang.
-
Ang gulo na nung thread na yun e. I'm not after their explanation. I'm after yours. Yes or no lang.
And the gist of Dpogs posts are always intersecting at one point anyways, so doesn't really matter where it is posted I guess.
-
Just noticed. Am I commiting blasphemy?
-
Oh yes you are -- so is all of the free thinking group here. ;)
-
:)
Ulitin ko lang yung tanong. How do you know that judgment hasn't come yet?
-
:)
Ulitin ko lang yung tanong. How do you know that judgment hasn't come yet?
I await the answer with much excitement. :)
-
:)
Ulitin ko lang yung tanong. How do you know that judgment hasn't come yet?
because I am still here. ;)
because the salt still here. ;)
because there are still people who havent heard the Word of God. ;)
because God still waiting for you to accept Him as your personal Saviour. ;)
-
because I am still here. ;)
because the salt still here. ;)
because there are still people who havent heard the Word of God. ;)
because God still waiting for you to accept Him as your personal Saviour. ;)
Kakaiba talaga... I do hope you're just joking.
-
Kakaiba talaga... I do hope you're just joking.
alien! ;D
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5iosvNQfeUc/0.jpg)
-
because there are still people who havent heard the Word of God. ;)
so you are a preacher, pastor dpogs? ::)
sa mindanao, sigurado marami pa doon.
-
so PinoyDVD member ang makakapagligtas sa ating lahat?
-
because I am still here. ;)
because the salt still here. ;)
because there are still people who havent heard the Word of God. ;)
because God still waiting for you to accept Him as your personal Saviour. ;)
The first line suggests finite time, the next 3 imply indeterminate period - could be 1 year, could be a century, could be a billion years.
-
It's near if you convert the paleontologic age of earth to 4,000 years...that's a factor of 4,000/4,500,000,000
Which reminds me, I recently watched a doc about possible ways to end the world
1. Yellowstone Park eruption
2. Worldwide spread of deadly virus
3. All out nuclear war
4. The Large Hadron Collider creating a small black hole
5. A black hole that comes dangerously close to earth
6. Alien invasion
7. Meteor collision
8. 6 degrees of average temperature increase
On a personal note, I have been preparing for the big one in Tokyo since I came here in 1990. The Japanese have been preparing for that since before I was born.
thats not even the entire list! massive solar flares that can bombard the earth with radiation and strip it of most of its atmosphere
so many things that can end the world
-
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:3qirEadaeeiqCM:http://closedstacks.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/thumbs-up.jpg)
Exactamundo.
I've been hearing doomsayers ever since I was in catholic school. Even the priests who were part of the group that began the indoctrination for my group who was about to enter priesthood said much the same thing. The visuals they used though were the TV movie "The Day After" and the Cold War scare. That was back in the late 80s.
Then you've got loonies like Father Tropa back in the 70s.
Catholicism itself is not a "the end is near" religion. although it does recognize that we are at the end times, that at any moment the world may and can come to an end. its message is to prepare for the eventual end, either of the world or our own life. both are guaranteed to happen, only question is when.
-
paano natin i-define ang salitang born-again?
"born-again" kadalasang tawag sa pentecostal denomination (those who speak in tounges, holy laughter, and the likes)
or
"born-again" by the spirit. pinawalang-sala. a true christian (kahit walang religion)
funny i keep hearing this "Christian kahit walang religion"
kung wala kang religion, how can you be trully Christian?
define religion nga?
-
again: salvation doesnt involve any membership in the church.
we are speaking about salvation... not membership sa kung anong denomination man yan...
salvation is being member of a Church
don't propagate this lie
Christ and His Church are described in two things that cannot be separated
1. Christ is the groom and the Church is His bride
2. Christ is the head and the Church is the body
now, if you do not belong to the Church, then how can you be one with Jesus?
-
+1
and Peter never set a foot in ROme.
so where was he beheaded and burried?
-
funny i keep hearing this "Christian kahit walang religion"
kung wala kang religion, how can you be trully Christian?
define religion nga?
define "true Christian"?
salvation is being member of a Church
don't propagate this lie
Christ and His Church are described in two things that cannot be separated
1. Christ is the groom and the Church is His bride
2. Christ is the head and the Church is the body
now, if you do not belong to the Church, then how can you be one with Jesus?
how to be a member of that Church (in other words - how to be save)?
then how can you be one with Jesus?
how can you be one with Jesus?
-
so where was he beheaded and burried?
no one knows... the Bible never mentioned where Peter died...
The Bible never mentions Simon Peter's death. Acts of the Apostles mentions the imprisonment and miraculous release of Peter, but does not say anything about his subsequent death, even though the book was written around the end of the century, long after Peter would have died.
However, the mid-second century pope Anicetus (156-166) said that Peter was beheaded by Nero in Rome. The reason for this claim was that he had became locked in a conflict with Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus told of Peter's beheading and said that he spoke with the authority of Peter. Then in the third century, the Church Father Origen changed the story somewhat, saying that Peter, condemned to crucifixion, felt himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, and so chose crucifixion upside down.
In fact, we do not know how or where Simon Peter died.
-
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus said he will give (in the future) the keys to Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NIV)
Catholic doctrine interprets the keys to mean the power to bind and to loose: Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him ... (Catholic Encyclopedia).
But in Matthew 18:18, speaking to all His disciples, Jesus gave the "power of binding and loosing" to all of His disciples (including Peter): I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (NIV)
Jesus was speaking to all disciples, not to Peter only. Notice that in His lengthy answer starting from Mat. 18:2, Jesus was talking to all disciples, because He was answering all of them: At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (Matthew 18:1, NIV)
the power of binding and loosing was subsequently given to all apostles, but the keys weren't
the authority to loose and bind wasn't directly tied to the keys. notice it was never mentioned that the other apostles received the keys. although that is the Orthodox belief, that is why they think all Churches are co-equal. i mean, even the Orthodox believe that Peter had a place among the apostles, first among equals. more like knights of the round table and he was King Arthur, rather than an absolute monarchy. but tradition has shown otherwise that Peter had the final say over the other Apostles in cases where there are questions or disputes, like the first council of Jerusalem
Peter did not remain "first among the apostles". It is true that he was the first in the list of original apostles. But in the first Church Council, which took place in Jerusalem (not in Rome with Peter as the head), it was James who was the leader. It was James who had the final word on the issue being discussed: When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:13;19, NIV) In Galatians 2:9, Paul confirms James' leadership by listing him first in his enumeration of the pillars: James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. (NIV)
James was the leader/bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as was the other Apostles were heads of the respective Churches they put up around the known world. they all came to Jerusalem for the council to decide on whether the Gentiles need to be circumsized and to address the issue of the Gentiles being treated as a lower class compared to the Jewish converts which Paul brought up
Before Peter agreed with Paul's view at the Jerusalem Council, Paul previously rebuked Peter in Antioch "to his face", and in public, because Peter was "clearly in the wrong":
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14, NIV)
This passage demonstrates that Peter was not occupying the position of an infallible Pope. It also shows that Paul considered Peter as an equal, with Peter having jurisdiction over the Jews, and Paul having jurisdiction over the Gentiles.
there's nothing that would take Peter's authority if Paul or any other apostle would openly criticize him for something.
infallability, even today, doesn't mean every word is law. infallibility just means that a pronouncement can be made with authority that something is to become a law. but this doesn't mean every word is infallible. if the pope says the sky is red, it doesn't mean every Catholic will believe the sky is red. it doesn't work that way.
Thus, Paul says: For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. ... They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (Galatians 2:8;9, NIV)
Clearly, if Peter's apostleship did not even extend to the Gentiles, then he could not have been "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church".
Peter had to proclaim the gospel to the Jews in Rome, while Paul who's fluent in Greek and learned and can freely travel across the Roman empire would minister to most other areas, that is why Paul covered a lot of ground compared to the other Apostles. not just because Peter's ministry doesn't cover Corinth or Galatia, doesn't mean he did not have authority over what is being taught in those areas. you only have to look at how the Church is being run today to understand how it works. a particular Bishop of an area runs that Area (ie Archdiocese of Manila) and is autonomous to other Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome (Pope). the Pope doesn't go look at what is being done in Manila or the thousands of other Archdioceses around the world. but if there are matters of the faith that needs to be decided, he is the supreme authority.
-
no one knows... the Bible never mentioned where Peter died...
The Bible never mentions Simon Peter's death. Acts of the Apostles mentions the imprisonment and miraculous release of Peter, but does not say anything about his subsequent death, even though the book was written around the end of the century, long after Peter would have died.
However, the mid-second century pope Anicetus (156-166) said that Peter was beheaded by Nero in Rome. The reason for this claim was that he had became locked in a conflict with Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus told of Peter's beheading and said that he spoke with the authority of Peter. Then in the third century, the Church Father Origen changed the story somewhat, saying that Peter, condemned to crucifixion, felt himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, and so chose crucifixion upside down.
In fact, we do not know how or where Simon Peter died.
there is such a thing as history
not just because the bible never mentioned it doesn't mean it didn't happen
Peter was killed in Rome during the time of Nero and was burred where St. Peter's Basilica stands today in the Vatican
the early Church fathers Tertullian and Origen attested to this
-
define "true Christian"?
how to be a member of that Church (in other words - how to be save)?
how can you be one with Jesus?
be a part of His Church
Romans 12:4-8
4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
-
be a part of His Church
Romans 12:4-8
4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
so salvation is by joining a church?
another question po: what comes first: salvation or membership?
-
The "end is near" stated in the Bible by Jesus Christ is in my opinion telling us that we just have to be prepared all the time. Repent and Accept him as your personal savior. For example, the people who just suddenly collapse and die, freak accidents riding on your motorcycle, head on collisions with other cars etc. etc. You will never know when is your time but just be prepared. Once you go thats it, no ifs and buts. I think that is what Jesus is saying na repent, accept him as your personal savior for the end is near.
-
so salvation is by joining a church?
another question po: what comes first: salvation or membership?
can you first share what you understand when we say "church"?
-
The "end is near" stated in the Bible by Jesus Christ is in my opinion telling us that we just have to be prepared all the time. Repent and Accept him as your personal savior. For example, the people who just suddenly collapse and die, freak accidents riding on your motorcycle, head on collisions with other cars etc. etc. You will never know when is your time but just be prepared. Once you go thats it, no ifs and buts. I think that is what Jesus is saying na repent, accept him as your personal savior for the end is near.
why do you keep saying "personal"?
is Jesus just for one person? and individual? does he treat us all as individuals? separate from one another?
-
can you first share what you understand when we say "church"?
exactly... we are not in the same perspective....
nang sinabi kong we dont need church (or religion) for our salvation. joining certain denomination/sect/religion is not a guarantee for salvation.
salvation first before we become the body of Christ (the Church).
sinabi mo po na to one with Jesus is to be part of His Church...
be a part of His Church
Romans 12:4-8
4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
my question po is: how to be part of His Church? (or in other words how to be save?)
John 3:16 "For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoseover believeth on him will not perish but have everlasting life".
this is a very familiar words to us... and yet this verse speaks whole about salvation...
salvation is believing not joining any denomination.
-
o.t. for sir dpogs
will manny pacquiao be saved (not by the bell)?
how about mommy dionisia? - maraming santo at santa
both sarado katoliko, hindi born-again.
-
why do you keep saying "personal"?
is Jesus just for one person? and individual? does he treat us all as individuals? separate from one another?
we are accountable on our own actions... salvation/belief in God/ is a personal choice...
if it is not personal... my question is... how did you come up with your belief... is it your decision or somebody's decision?
-
why do you keep saying "personal"?
is Jesus just for one person? and individual? does he treat us all as individuals? separate from one another?
I believe each person has its own individual relationship with Jesus Christ. No two persons are alike. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in ( if you believe that )
-
I believe each person has its own individual relationship with Jesus Christ. No two persons are alike. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in ( if you believe that )
x2 ...the HOLY SPIRIT enlightens 8)
the word "personal" may have been used so as to avoid being misconstrued as sharing what we know and firmly believe as universally known and accepted BIBLE messages sometimes trigger some negative reactions..
again, when confused, the HOLY SPIRIT enlightens 8)
-
Hmmm...pansin ko lang: lahat yata ng threads dito ay may mga Bible passages kahit na pulitika ang topic.
Most of the time, nagiging OT na yung mga replies.
I wonder if it is possible to refrain from doing this.
-
salvation/belief in God/ is a personal choice...
That's not what I'm getting from the free-will/predestination thread.
-
exactly... we are not in the same perspective....
nang sinabi kong we dont need church (or religion) for our salvation. joining certain denomination/sect/religion is not a guarantee for salvation.
salvation first before we become the body of Christ (the Church).
oh, but baliktad ang intindi mo
you can't be saved unless you are part of this Body of Christ
therefore if you are not part of the Church, you are not saved
sinabi mo po na to one with Jesus is to be part of His Church...
my question po is: how to be part of His Church? (or in other words how to be save?)
John 3:16 "For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoseover believeth on him will not perish but have everlasting life".
this is a very familiar words to us... and yet this verse speaks whole about salvation...
salvation is believing not joining any denomination.
ah, if that verse is the only thing you need for salvation, what about the other 99% of the Bible?
you are hinging salvation on only one verse. but that is not the whole truth
yan ang problema sa inyong mga Bible-only Christians, you read one verse and you base an entire faith of off one verse, minsan out of context pa yung verse. the bible was never meant to be read nor interpreted piece by piece. lest you only submit yourself to the partial teaching of Christ.
-
we are accountable on our own actions... salvation/belief in God/ is a personal choice...
if it is not personal... my question is... how did you come up with your belief... is it your decision or somebody's decision?
we are repsonsible not only for our own actions, but for our brothers
Matthew 18:15-17
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
Jesus asks us to deal with our brothers who sin against us
remember the two commandments of Christ, love God and love neighbor. claiming Jesus as a personal savior distorts what His true mission on earth was, its to save ALL.
-
One more question Dpogs, what if, nagugunaw na ang mundo and then I had a chance at that instance to proclaim, "sasapi ako sa pananampalataya ni Dpogs". Ok lang yon? Or meron deadline to join? Just curious ne. Wag mo masamain yung tanong.
Kase maski sa movies, you'd see the main characters (the good guys) reciting The Lord's Prayer kapag imminent na yung death. Will that work in your belief?
Napag-usapan din namin ito. Lalo na kung pre-meditated meaning, "pagmamatay na ako, dun ko na lang tatanggapin si Jesus". Sabi nila, depende daw kung in your heart, mind and soul, tinanggap mo sya, even if matitinding kasalanan nagawa mo. Tanggap ka. But then, depende na lang sa sincerity mo. Pero mahirap nga naman maging sincere kung pre-meditated.
re free will and pre-destined, naniniwala ako.
Since we have free will, we can choose whatever path we take. Pre-destined meaning since we chose that path, there will be consequences sa action na yun.
example:
free will - I studied hard for the exams.
pre-destined - papasa ka.
-
re free will and pre-destined, naniniwala ako.
Since we have free will, we can choose whatever path we take. Pre-destined meaning since we chose that path, there will be consequences sa action na yun.
example:
free will - I studied hard for the exams.
pre-destined - papasa ka.
I understand what you're getting at but I don't think it will always work out that way.
example:
free will - I will not drink, I will drive very safely.
pre-destined ba na makakauwi ka safely? I think there's still a chance you can meet with an accident.
conversely:
free will - I will drink, I will drive drunk.
pre-destined ba na maa-aksidente ka? Hindi rin naman, may chance naman na makakauwi ka pa rin ng buhay.
-
Magka-kontra talaga ang free will and predestination. Choose one. You can't have both.
example:
free will - I studied hard for the exams.
pre-destined - papasa ka.
Kung predestined na papasa ka, mag-aral ka man o hindi, papasa ka. Huwag ka na lang mag-aral, predestined naman na papasa ka e.
Kung predestined na babagsak ka, mag-aral ka man o hindi, babagsak ka. Huwag ka na lang mag-aral, predestined naman na babagsak ka e.
Ang tama, mag-aral ka para mas malaki ang chance na pumasa ka. Dahil hindi nga predestined ang pagpasa o pagbagsak.
Meron talagang predestination sa Bible, at napaka-simple lang intindihin. Pero ang predestination sa Bible ay may ibang meaning, hindi pareho sa ordinary usage.
Napag-usapan din namin ito. Lalo na kung pre-meditated meaning, "pagmamatay na ako, dun ko na lang tatanggapin si Jesus". Sabi nila, depende daw kung in your heart, mind and soul, tinanggap mo sya, even if matitinding kasalanan nagawa mo. Tanggap ka. But then, depende na lang sa sincerity mo. Pero mahirap nga naman maging sincere kung pre-meditated.
Hindi lahat ng kasalanan ay may kapatawaran. Sa Bible, may kasalanan na walang kapatawaran.
Kung hindi mo pa nagagawa ang ganoong kasalanan, puwede kang magsisi pag malapit ka nang mamatay. Gaya ng sabi mo, depende sa sincerity. Tulad ng magnanakaw na pinako sa tabi ni Hesus. Inamin ang mga kasalanan, nagsisi, ayun --- kakasamahin daw siya sa Paraiso.
Yung isang magnanakaw, matigas talaga ang ulo. Mamamatay na nga, walanghiya pa rin.
Pero hindi lahat ay may pagkakataong magsisi bago mamatay. Paano kung natutulog ka, namatay ka sa bangungot. :D Malas mo.
-
I understand what you're getting at but I don't think it will always work out that way.
example:
free will - I will not drink, I will drive very safely.
pre-destined ba na makakauwi ka safely? I think there's still a chance you can meet with an accident.
conversely:
free will - I will drink, I will drive drunk.
pre-destined ba na maa-aksidente ka? Hindi rin naman, may chance naman na makakauwi ka pa rin ng buhay.
You have a very concrete point there. Tama ka. Dito siguro papasok ang faith na pag hindi ka uminom ng madami, alam natin through faith na hindi tayo pababayaan mapahamak ng Creator natin.
Magka-konra talaga ang free will and predestination. Choose one. You can't have both.
Kung predestined na papasa ka, mag-aral ka man o hindi, papasa ka. Huwag ka na lang mag-aral, predestined naman na papasa ka e.
Kung predestined na babagsak ka, mag-aral ka man o hindi, babagsak ka. Huwag ka na lang mag-aral, predestined naman na babagsak ka e.
Ang tama, mag-aral ka para mas malaki ang chance na pumasa ka. Dahil hindi nga predestined ang pagpasa o pagbagsak.
Meron talagang predestination sa Bible, at napaka-simple lang intindihin. Pero ang predestination sa Bible ay may ibang meaning, hindi pareho sa ordinary usage.
Hindi lahat ng kasalanan ay may kapatawaran. Sa Bible, may kasalanan na walang kapatawaran.
Kung hindi mo pa nagagawa ang ganoong kasalanan, puwede kang magsisi pag malapit ka nang mamatay. Gaya ng sabi mo, depende sa sincerity. Tulad ng magnanakaw na pinako sa tabi ni Hesus. Inamin ang mga kasalanan, nagsisi, ayun --- kakasamahin daw siya sa Paraiso.
Yung isang magnanakaw, matigas talaga ang ulo. Mamamatay na nga, walanghiya pa rin.
Pero hindi lahat ay may pagkakataong magsisi bago mamatay. Paano kung natutulog ka, namatay ka sa bangungot. :D Malas mo.
Yes sir. Malas talaga. ;D ;D ;D
So dapat, habang nabubuhay pa tayo, we are given every chance para itama ang mga pagkakamali natin. Bakit kailangan pa nga naman na hantayin na mamamatay bago itama ang mga pagkakamali.
Ano ba yun kasalanan na walang kapatawaran. Hindi kasi ako nagbabasa ng bible masyado. Hehe!
Siguro sir, kung nag-aral at bumagsak, probably mali ang inaral natin. Hehe! Kung mali ang inaral natin, hindi sya papasok sa context ng nag-aral. IMHO lang...
-
So dapat, habang nabubuhay pa tayo, we are given every chance para itama ang mga pagkakamali natin. Bakit kailangan pa nga naman na hantayin na mamamatay bago itama ang mga pagkakamali.
Iyan na nga ang temang paulit-ulit sa Bibliya. Dapat lagi kang handa, dahil hindi mo alam ang oras at araw.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. (Matt. 25:13, NIV)
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. (Matt. 24:42-43, NIV)
Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed. (Rev. 16:15, NIV)
Ano ba yun kasalanan na walang kapatawaran. Hindi kasi ako nagbabasa ng bible masyado. Hehe!
Ang pamumusong laban sa Banal na Espirito ang kasalanan na walang kapatawaran.
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, NIV)
I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:28-29, NIV)
Kaya nga hindi totoo ang sinasabing kahit anong kasalanan daw any mapapatawad.
Sa katunayan, ang isang taong gumawa ng kasalanang ikamamatay ay hindi na dapat pang ipagdasal ng isang Kristiyano, dahil ang dasal ay hindi na makakatulong sa kanya:
If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. (1 John 5:16, NIV)
-
@choy
True Christianity, as taught by Christ, is not about religion, or joining one.
It is about establishing a personal relationship with God - gaining understanding of His will - and being like-minded with Him in treating Holiness.
The church is not a cursory to any religion. Being a member of the church is not being a member of a religion (in Biblical terms).
Being a member of the Church is to be counted as one of His children - those who understood salvation is through no other means but faith on the finished work of Jesus on calvary - those who have experienced the miraculous change in ones life.
We can not be perfectly sinless while in the flesh - but the church has natural abhorence of such - but still trust that salvation does not rest on anybody's accomplishmenyt of good works! Though you can not interpret a single verse, the whole book should be enough to give you the idea - read Galatians to see the whole placement of good works of man in the equation.
David premeditated the murder of Bathsheba's wife so he can totally get Bathsheba, and cover his sin - and yet such sin was not punished by God in the long term (eternity) - though He was punished in the short term (earthly life) - in fact, David is considered in true Christianity as "the Man after God's own heart!".
-
As for the unpardonable sin - there is only one.
Of course, the Bible talks about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - but what exactly is blashphemy of the Holy SPirit?
The rejection of Jesus and His works on Calvary as the sole remedy for your salvation - resulting to a life that is not acceptable to God's standard of Holiness!
-
hay naku, hindi pa puwede stick to the topic?
Btw, I have noticed that the coverage of the pope's involvement in pedophile cases is not as comprehensive in the Philippines compared to the coverage here in Australia.
Is the Catholic church influencing Philippine media as well?
Pati ba naman free press kayang kalabanin ng simbahan?
-
... Of course, the Bible talks about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - but what exactly is blashphemy of the Holy SPirit?
The rejection of Jesus and His works on Calvary as the sole remedy for your salvation - resulting to a life that is not acceptable to God's standard of Holiness!
No, that's not it.
If it meant "rejection of Jesus", the Bible would have simply said "rejection of Jesus".
"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is a concept that is much deeper than that.
-
sirs, anong say niyo sa christian ultra-conservative fundamentalist extreme right wing ng america?
true christians ba sila sir dpogs?
paano na ang separation of church and state?
may alingasngas dati na may kinalaman sila sa pagsakop ng mga bush sa iraq. para baguhin ang hilatsa ng middle east.
comments are welcome and appreciated
-
No, that's not it.
If it meant "rejection of Jesus", the Bible would have simply said "rejection of Jesus".
"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is a concept that is much deeper than that.
What could be deeper than one's rejection of Jesus ('til death I would say)?
Of course, I am putting it in simpler terms than trying to find a legal definition of it that would end just the same - one's Rejection of Jesus!
Yes, it could mean different to you because we subscribe differently to what biblical salvation is about?
I thought the same too before, until I understood the end meaning (or its correlation to Jesus) of it.
Or should you say one's rejection of Jesus ('til your last breath) is pardonable? While that of the Holy Spirit is not?
-
That's not what I'm getting from the free-will/predestination thread.
he he he
yep ... it might looked somewhat off-tangent.
the personal choice which led us to this quagmire maybe blamed on Adam who chose to disobey God.
but now, you should also blame yourself as well because you do the same as Adam (remember, our flesh situation is not our own doing, but of Adam's)
When HS quickens (made you alive) - you are poised to make the choice of choosing Him - there is nothing else to do since you are made to understand - and in man's viewpoint, you made the personal choice.
To them who are not enlightened, they continue to defy God - so its their personal choice (and they can not help it, since blindness is upon them).
In the first instance, you may attribute your personal choice because you were aided by the HS.
In the second instance, you can not blame God on your personal choice - blame Adam, and yourself!
-
please stick to the topic.
It is about the separation of church and state. There are separate threads available to discuss bible verses.
So do you think it is time for all government officials sever their ties from any religious organization? Do you think this close relationship is affecting the politician's popularity?
-
Personally, I don't think politicians should. Religion and faith should be a private matter anyway. But it surely must not affect what you need to do for the greater good.
I was listening to Rock Ed in NU 107 a few days ago and the topic was AIDS and one of the guests was Sec. Cabral of the DOH. Cabral advocates for the distribution of condoms to prevent STDs. When asked if she is afraid of the Catholic Church because what she is doing is against what they preach, this lady said that of course, she is afraid of the church. But this fear shouldn't stop her from doing what she thinks is right.
That woman is going to get my vote if she runs for senator.
-
Don't Filipinos prefer god-fearing and not church-fearing? Or do we know the difference?
-
Must be "god-fearing" not "church-fearing".
Iba ang may pagkakatakot sa Diyos at ang may takot sa simbahan.
-
Must be "god-fearing" not "church-fearing".
Iba ang may pagkakatakot sa Diyos at ang may takot sa simbahan.
i agree with this. that's what's ideal unfortunately many people fear the church more.
-
i agree with this. that's what's ideal unfortunately many people fear the church more.
im glad we agree on this one.
kung titingnan natin maigi at susuriin... if everyone of us including the government officials ay merong pagkatakot sa Diyos... sa palagay ko mawawalang saysay ang katagang "separation of church and state"...
everyone is in harmony...
-
if everyone of us including the government officials ay merong pagkatakot sa Diyos... sa palagay ko mawawalang saysay ang katagang "separation of church and state"...
everyone is in harmony...
I have to disagree on this one.
What if the next president of the Philippines was an extremely conservative, maybe even fundamentalist, God-fearing Muslim?
Do you still think "everyone will be in harmony"?
-
dapat talaga separate ang church and state. the catholic church should not meddle on state affairs such as the RH bill.
-
I find it strange that in upholding the separation of church and state, people don't want the church to meddle in state affairs, but don't mind if the state meddles on church affairs. They don't see that the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church. While population is a state affair, birth control is not. What a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them and God, not between them and the state.
It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the means by which its people get the right food, decent livelihood, decent roads, shelter, etc. It short, it is a state affair to feed its population. If it is having problems feeding its people, it should look at ways to increase food production at prices its people can afford and concurrently create more job opportunities for more people to afford a better life. This is where the greatest challenge lie and it's where we need PhDs and seasoned technocrats in government to lick the problem.
But you don't need them if all they can think about is curtaining population growth. Even a grade schooler can propose to cut back on population as a knee jerk skin-deep solution. That's the problem. People like the easiest way out of a bind. Instead of meeting the challenge of increasing production, the government prefer to take the easier solution - control population. I really have no problem with it from a secular perspective, but in the process, it brings them in direct confrontation with the Church. That's because their solution runs smack into church area to make a mockery of its doctrines on the matter of reproductive discipline.
-
when does the state meddle in church affairs? i can think of much more examples of church meddling in state affairs rather than vice versa.
"the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church" - in this case, I presume you are speaking about the Catholic Church. what about other churches who have no stand against birth control? what about people without a religion? disagreeing with the RH bill per se just because it is contradicting with the doctrines (man-made in this case I will assume) of a singular church is just not right.
what a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them period. it is not between them and God, nor is it between them and the state.
the easiest/most obvious solution is not necessarily the worst solution - it can actually be the best one, taking into consideration all factors. looking for ways to increase food production at prices people can afford - that is much more difficult to implement given market forces and limited resources (not to mention corruption at all levels). and as you can see, controlling population sounds easier than it actually is.
-
IMHO: it is much easier to increase food production and to provide livelihood projects than to control population... kung tama lang sana ang perspective natin...
ganito na lang... naisip ko lang...
depende siguro kung ano ang tingin natin sa kung ano ang magagawa ng population sa isang bansa...
if we consider population as power (or an asset) then we have no problem at all...pero kung ang tingin natin ay ang population ang sanhi ng problema then we have great deal of problem.
bakit ang mga nag-aalaga ng baboy gusto nila malaki ang population ng kanilang mga poultry/swine/other animals... ginagawa ng management (o ng may-ari) ang lahat para lang maging malusog, walang sakit at nasa magandang kundisyon ang kanilang mga alaga... iyong iba nakaaircon pa... para sa kanila... the more the merrier... mas marami mas malaking kita...
bakit di ito magawa ng mga nagdaang/kasalukuyang administrasyon... bakit di natin gayahin ang pag-iisip ng mga animal breeder... why not provide quality education para maging mas productive ang ating populasyon... why not provide enough food and shelter to get the best from us...
i think... AVphile is right.
It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the means by which its people get the right food, decent livelihood, decent roads, shelter, etc. It short, it is a state affair to feed its population. If it is having problems feeding its people, it should look at ways to increase food production at prices its people can afford and concurrently create more job opportunities for more people to afford a better life. This is where the greatest challenge lie and it's where we need PhDs and seasoned technocrats in government to lick the problem.
But you don't need them if all they can think about is curtaining population growth. Even a grade schooler can propose to cut back on population as a knee jerk skin-deep solution. That's the problem. People like the easiest way out of a bind. Instead of meeting the challenge of increasing production, the government prefer to take the easier solution - control population. I really have no problem with it from a secular perspective, but in the process, it brings them in direct confrontation with the Church. That's because their solution runs smack into church area to make a mockery of its doctrines on the matter of reproductive discipline.
-
This separation of church and state thing is a basic principle of the kind of government we have. obviously this is in practice as all decisions are still lodged in the government and not the church. The church is just trying to influence people in the government to follow the thinking of the church. Any group, organization or party can in fact lobby anything to pursue its own interests -even the communists have their own people working to push their principles...this is democracy at work. As long as the government still decides in the best interest of the and in the name of the people to which it represents, and not the church, then it is completely alright.
-
I find it strange that in upholding the separation of church and state, people don't want the church to meddle in state affairs, but don't mind if the state meddles on church affairs. They don't see that the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church. While population is a state affair, birth control is not. What a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them and God, not between them and the state.
The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
-
The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
i 100% agree!
-
The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
The problem is the fact that most of the lawmakers are members of the catholic religion and the church is using all its powers to influence these people. Maybe the catholic religion successfully fielded enough number of people in the Congress so that it can pursue its own agenda. In a democracy, there is what we sometimes call survival of the fittest.
-
The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
Very well said.
The problem is the fact that most of the lawmakers are members of the catholic religion and the church is using all its powers to influence these people. Maybe the catholic religion successfully fielded enough number of people in the Congress so that it can pursue its own agenda. In a democracy, there is what we sometimes call survival of the fittest.
Nagkataon lang siguro talaga na madaming catholics sa government. Wala tayo sir magagawa kasi democracy nga tayo. Kung baga sila yun may pinakamadaming voters kaya sila yun elected.
-
I was born and grew up in a Church Of England society that allowed complete freedom of expression. I was shocked by just how much the Roman Catholic Church sticks its nose in business that clearly does not concern them. If people are intelligent and forward thinking enough to want to use contraceptives the church should shut up and mind its own business. I as an individual have ZERO tolerance and respect for the RC Church as an institution, especially after what has been going on with their role in pedophilia and supporting of the Nazis during WWII. I know that I am probably going to get flamed for this but I seriously believe that the RCC should be disbanded. When I met my wife (who is from Cebu) in Thailand her church actually ordered her to stop seeing me as I was NOT from their church, she chose to drop them instead. The churches here are like the ones in Mexico, xenophobic, bigoted and run by zealots and crooks who wouldn't know God or Jesus if he past them in the street. We have a brand new Church/ Cathedral here in Cebu that cost hundreds of millions of US Dollars, that makes me sick. That money could have fed and housed EVERY street kid in Cebu. If Jesus could see what the Philippine church was doing in his name he would cry in shame. The Philippine church clearly needs to practice what it so much love to preach.
-
The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
I don't know how the legal profession defines meddling in the context of church state separation, but if the church rallies its people against an unjust or oppressive government, thanks to the fact that 80% of the people are Catholics as of 2000, that's considered as meddling though I have my own contrary opinion about that. This time, the government is effectively rallying the people to use artificial means of contraception which is in direct contravention of the Papal Encyclical in the Humanae Vtae, and people don't want to call it meddling. No matter, I think I used the wrong word.
When the state starts to espouse ways and means that contradict church teachings, this is the state threading on religious grounds and effectively meddling in church affairs. Actually, the word "meddling" in this context, is too weak a word for what I wanted to put across. I should say, insulting, or mocking. In that case, I stand corrected for using a weak word.
It hardly matters that the state also supports what the Church allows. The fact is, the state is aiming to create a legal footing for what the Church considers an immoral act. It also matters little that the state is not enforcing its will on the people. When Cardinal Sin exhorted the people to rally against Marcos in 1986, he wasn't enforcing his will and the people were also free to follow or not. And yet people call it meddling. But no matter, the state is not meddling, it's just mocking the religion of 80% of its people.
I am of the opinion that the Church is defending its turf from the "meddling" or more accurately, the affront that the state is doing. The Catholic injunction against artificial contraception is quite clear in the Papal Encyclical as early as 1968. When the state starts its population control programs espousing artificial contraception that flies in the face of Church teachings, what did you expect the Church to do, sit it out in silence?
The Church has been successful so far in preventing the passage of the RH bill by lobbying against it which anyone can do. Is that meddling? Yes, But that is the result of the State's own "meddling" in church doctrines on this issue.
The last time I read the constitution, the Bill of Rights emanating from the separation of the Church and State is directed at the State ("No law shall be made respecting the establishment..."), not at the Church which, in the same provision, is guaranteed the freedom of religious exercise. Hence, the way I see it, the Church exercises its constitutional guarantee when it actively asserts itself in secular affairs that impinge on its doctrinal authority. Situations where the state deliberately or by inaction abnegates its responsibility to protect the citizen against any form of injustice or sanctions immoral acts are all game for the Church to step in.
The spirit and intent as well as the origins behind the separation of Church and State does not envision a Godless society. That is the contemplation of communism, not in a democracy. Certainly not in a predominantly Catholic democracy. So when this government starts to stray into Godlessness, the Church sees it its moral and rightful duty to intervene and meddle.
-
So are you saying non-Catholics, non-Christians, atheists and agnostics have no rights in the Philippines?
It's true that the government has no right to dictate what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults. But the same should go for the Church. People should be free to CHOOSE whether or not they want condoms, etc. with the CORRECT information. If they want to reject the government's offer of teaching them how to use condoms and contraceptives, they're free to do so. But at the same time the Church has NO RIGHT to try to actively prevent couples, Catholic or otherwise, from wanting to learn about contraception or wishing to access condoms, pills, etc.
This time, the government is effectively rallying the people to use artificial means of contraception in direct contravention of the Papal Encyclical in the Humanae Vtae, and people don't want to call it meddling.
It is my understanding that the RH bill is there for people who want it. More affordable and easier access to contraception and education on all methods, natural or artificial. Simple as that. If you can prove to me that government is FORCING people to use contraception and REQUIRING them to limit their children, then I'll protest the RH Bill alongside you. But as far as I know, they're not.
If the Catholic Church doesn't like this bill, then they can protest it from the pulpit and discourage people from using it. But respect them enough as human beings with brains to let them decide for themselves.
-
I was born and grew up in a Church Of England society that allowed complete freedom of expression. I was shocked by just how much the Roman Catholic Church sticks its nose in business that clearly does not concern them. If people are intelligent and forward thinking enough to want to use contraceptives the church should shut up and mind its own business. I as an individual have ZERO tolerance and respect for the RC Church as an institution, especially after what has been going on with their role in pedophilia and supporting of the Nazis during WWII. I know that I am probably going to get flamed for this but I seriously believe that the RCC should be disbanded. When I met my wife (who is from Cebu) in Thailand her church actually ordered her to stop seeing me as I was NOT from their church, she chose to drop them instead. The churches here are like the ones in Mexico, xenophobic, bigoted and run by zealots and crooks who wouldn't know God or Jesus if he past them in the street. We have a brand new Church/ Cathedral here in Cebu that cost hundreds of millions of US Dollars, that makes me sick. That money could have fed and housed EVERY street kid in Cebu. If Jesus could see what the Philippine church was doing in his name he would cry in shame. The Philippine church clearly needs to practice what it so much love to preach.
i agree 100%. those holier than thou old farts act as if they have moral ascendancy over the rest of us mere mortals when in fact history has recorded that the RC church has been mired in corruption and scandal from the lowliest priest up to the pope. popes have waged war in the name of god killing hundreds of thousands. they have committed incest and sired children and made their children cardinals. archbishops have and are continuing to molest children. and after all this they still have the kapalmuks to say they have moral ascendancy over the common man?
like trapos, the church prefers its followers to remain stupid and ignorant so that they will just follow whatever the church tells them.
btw that 80% catholics in the Philippines is hogwash. 80% of that 80% are probably nominal catholics. its just what people write on their resumes and application forms. there is no choice in this country. babies are baptized because the church tells parents that if something happens to the baby and its not baptized yet, it will go to hell. to me this is just a ploy to make sure that the church never runs out of victims.
-
i agree 100%. those holier than thou old farts act as if they have moral ascendancy over the rest of us mere mortals when in fact history has recorded that the RC church has been mired in corruption and scandal from the lowliest priest up to the pope. popes have waged war in the name of god killing hundreds of thousands. they have committed incest and sired children and made their children cardinals. archbishops have and are continuing to molest children. and after all this they still have the kapalmuks to say they have moral ascendancy over the common man?
like trapos, the church prefers its followers to remain stupid and ignorant so that they will just follow whatever the church tells them.
btw that 80% catholics in the Philippines is hogwash. 80% of that 80% are probably nominal catholics. its just what people write on their resumes and application forms. there is no choice in this country. babies are baptized because the church tells parents that if something happens to the baby and its not baptized yet, it will go to hell. to me this is just a ploy to make sure that the church never runs out of victims.
Agreed 1000000000000000000% and well said my man
-
Bishop Cruz tells ‘Pajero 7’: Confess
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/19014/bishop-cruz-tells-%e2%80%98pajero-7%e2%80%99-confess
;D Tsk tsk tsk
-
Activist priest Robert Reyes says bishops got more than Pajeros
By Maricar Cinco
Inquirer Southern Luzon
7:49 pm | Tuesday, June 28th, 2011
SAN PEDRO, Laguna—Activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes on Tuesday alleged that a number of Catholic bishops not only got expensive vehicles out of public funds but also benefited in other forms during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
“Not just the Pajeros. She constructed houses (for priests), convents, cathedrals, and gave away cars,” Reyes, a staunch critic of the past administration, said in a phone interview.
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office chair Margarita Juico earlier said they were verifying reports that Arroyo solicited the support of Catholic leaders by giving them Mitsubishi Pajeros.
This was after PCSO officials disclosed that Arroyo, now a congresswoman in the second district of Pampanga, left the PCSO some P4 billion in debt.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18946/activist-priest-robert-reyes-says-bishops-got-more-than-pajeros
-
The Wall Between Church And State
Religion is important in the lives of most Americans. Whether they are Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, or Atheists, they are all welcome in this country and are able to practice their religious faiths or lack thereof freely thanks to the first amendment of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers made certain that religious freedom reigned but they also wanted the newly created government to work based on reason and intellect. To achieve this goal, they built a wall between church and state. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Separation of church and state has been part of the foundation of this country for over 200 years. Since the dawn of the twentieth century, however, Christian Fundamentalists have literally gone on a crusade to rewrite American history and tear down the wall of separation that has existed since America’s founding. These groups are mostly associated with the Christian Right Wing of the Republican Party. It is their belief that America should be solely a white Christian nation controlled by white Christians and that all minorities and other religions be swept away by any means necessary.
Prior to the Christian Right Wing movement, the government of the United States operated as a neutral body that did not favor any one religion over another. God was not mentioned on our money, nor was God part of the Pledge of Allegiance. There were no national day’s of prayer, and churches were NOT exempt from paying taxes. Even the Founders themselves believed in separation of church and state. For example, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
James Madison, main author of the Constitution, also made reference to the separation of church and state and stated why its necessary:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
Still not convinced? The Founders said even more than what I have provided above. Here are even more quotes.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”- Thomas Jefferson in an 1814 letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper.
“In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”-James Madison
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”- John Adams
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.
“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Crist.”
- Thomas Jefferson
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. -James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
The above quotes prove that early Americans deemed the mixture of government and religion as a dangerous combination and even though the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, its clear that the Founders meant for separation to exist. Many on the Christian Right Wing insist that separation of church and state means that government cannot mess with religion but that religion can mess with government. This is false logic, because when religion begins interfering with government, it ends up having a measure of control over it, and begins favoring one religion over another. This violates the Constitution and is precisely why separation of church and state was established and meant to work both ways.
The history of separation of church and state isn’t that complicated and isn’t as ambiguous as the Christian Right Wing would lead you to believe. For instance, the Christian Right claims that this nation was created under a Christian banner. This is not so. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find God, Jesus Christ, or a declaration of a national religion, quite the opposite in fact. The nation was founded on the principle of Freedom of Religion. This means that people can practice any faith or reject religion all together. Even George Washington, the father of our country, rejected Christianity as a founding principle. Washington signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated that “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” That is further concrete evidence of separation of church and state.
Separation of church and state was so important to early Americans that many states prohibited clergymen from serving as representatives and senators. Many of America’s early Presidents were also pressured to declare a national day of prayer but they resisted. Total separation of church and state was considered the best safeguard for the health of each. As President Andrew Jackson explained, in refusing to name a fast day, he feared to “disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country, in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.” Some Presidents have recommended days of thanks, but it wasn’t until 1952 that Congress passed a National Day of Prayer into law thus interfering in religion directly.
In the 1860′s coins that contained the phrase “In God We Trust” began to be circulated. Keep in mind that this was not federally mandated at the time but was a choice of the mint. The phrase was not allowed to be printed on paper currency and the phrase was removed from all currency in the 1880′s. In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring In God We Trust on all currency and adopted the phrase as the National motto in 1956. And since God is a direct reference to the Christian deity, Congress had once again declared a National religion thus violating the Constitution.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist. The Pledge was written to represent all Americans of every faith. The words “under God” were only added by Congressional decree in 1954, thus misrepresenting millions of Americans who are not of the Christian faith. The current version basically forces people to declare that the United States is a nation of God even though that is a false notion.
Throughout American history, churches have not paid taxes, and in 1913, churches became exempt from paying income taxes. And that’s really a shame too, considering how rich many churches and preachers have become in recent times. Rev. John Hagee, for instance, reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San Antonio Express-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In the early years of this nation, churches were exempt from taxation because they didn’t make money worth taxing. Even preachers didn’t make much. The business of religion has become a multi-billion dollar industry today which if taxed, would generate billions in revenue to help erase the deficit and pay off the debt. And many preachers today, are rich and hide their assets under the church’s name. In 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approximately $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $750 million in 1969, $1 billion in 1982, and $3 billion in 1989. It is even more today. We should at least tax huge churches. Not even the Founding Fathers thought churches were that special. And the Christian Right Wing believes that it is the obligation of government to provide funds to Christian churches and only to Christian churches, which is once again, a violation of the Constitution. If churches cannot be taxed, why should the government have to give them even a cent? Even Benjamin Franklin, the Founding Father who said that “a firehouse is more useful than a church” disagrees with this. He said, “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
Prayer days, phrases on currency, and words in a pledge may violate the sanctity of the Constitution but its harmless compared to what the Christian Right Wing wants to do next. Many alleged “men of God” have made many disturbing claims and statements that would not only destroy the foundations of this nation but would also violate their own Biblical text. Christian Fundamentalists have made it their duty to infiltrate Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency, in an effort to declare the United States of America a Christian nation that abides by biblical law instead of Constitutional law.
The first part of their plan is to “re-educate” Americans by rewriting history to favor their cause. That includes creating false quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers. The main perpetrator of this practice, is David Barton, President of his Wallbuilders organization and Glenn Beck pal. Barton has freely admitted to creating quotes and falsely attributing them to Founding Fathers. Here are three made up quotes by Barton.
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
– false quote attributed to Patrick Henry
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
– false quote attributed to George Washington
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves … according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
– false quote attributes to James Madison
In addition to these fake quotes, David Barton and other Christian Right Wing organizations have created fake Supreme Court opinions and further false quotes from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, all in an effort to prove that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Now, if there is no such thing as separation of church and state, why do these organizations make up quotes? The way I see it, if you’re going to go to the effort of creating false quotations to destroy something that you claim doesn’t exist, that must mean it does in fact exist, and that the Christian Right Wing is just full of bald faced liars.
So let’s imagine for a moment what it would be like if this nation no longer had separation of church and state. Well, one only has to look around at what has happened recently to understand what the future could hold if the Christian Right Wing were to gain power. First of all, they would declare Christianity the official national religion, tearing up the first amendment in the process. But don’t take my word for it, here are theirs…In the words of the Family Research Council, a Right Wing Christian group:
“While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country’s heritage. Our Founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”
More at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/04/the-wall-between-church-and-state/
-
whew!!!
ang isang tunay na alagad ng Diyos ay hindi agarang humihingi ng mga bagay na materyal sa ibang tao o sa isang institusyon na hindi nasasakupan ng kanyang simbahan...
ang PCSO/LGU/NGO ay hindi sakop ng simbahang katoliko...
ang pagbibigay o offerings ay dapat ibinibigay at nagaganap sa loob ng simbahan at hindi kailangang ipangalandakan na ikaw ay nagbigay ng ganitong halaga.
-
whew!!!
ang isang tunay na alagad ng Diyos ay hindi agarang humihingi ng mga bagay na materyal sa ibang tao o sa isang institusyon na hindi nasasakupan ng kanyang simbahan...
Lalong lalo na kung para sa birthday nya.. hehehe
Sabi ng mga pulitiko na gustong sumipsip, wala daw masama dito.. ;D
-
Indonesian man sentenced to 30 months in prison for making athiest comments on Facebook
Alexander Aan was charged with posting cartoons of the prophet Mohammed to an atheist Facebook group and for making statements including, "If God exists, then why do bad things happen?" The comments Aan made wound up inciting an angry mob to seek him out and severely beat him.
Since then, Aan has been charged and convincted of "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility." Amnesty International is calling for Aan's release, branding his conviction "a serious setback for freedom of expression in Indonesia, and [a violation of] Indonesia's obligations under international law."
http://mashable.com/2012/06/15/imprisoned-atheist-facebook/
-
Lawmaker wants religion out of gov't offices
A party-list lawmaker is seeking to ban religious symbols and the holding of religious ceremonies in government offices, citing the provisions on freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, in filing a measure titled “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act,” said his bill seeks to empower heads of offices and departments to strictly follow the constitutional provision on the freedom of religion in the exercise of their official functions, and in the use of government facilities and property.
http://ph.sports.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-religion-govt-offices-162241156.html
-
Lawmaker wants religion out of gov't offices
A party-list lawmaker is seeking to ban religious symbols and the holding of religious ceremonies in government offices, citing the provisions on freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, in filing a measure titled “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act,” said his bill seeks to empower heads of offices and departments to strictly follow the constitutional provision on the freedom of religion in the exercise of their official functions, and in the use of government facilities and property.
http://ph.sports.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-religion-govt-offices-162241156.html
There's something wrong with that news item. Rep. Raymond Palatino wants "religious freedom," yet seeks a ban, which is the opposite of freedom.
The Bill of Rights states: "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st sentence, Sec. 5, Art. III, Constitution)
The first clause is called the "Establishment Clause," while the second is called the "Free Exercise Clause."
The only way to ensure separation between State and religion is too keep all religion out of government --- "non-establishment." We got that concept from the Americans.
In advocating a religious symbol/ceremony ban in government offices, Palatino is obviously referring to the Establishment Clause rather than the Free Exercise Clause. But why does he call his bill the “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act”? That doesn't make sense.
Maybe because it sounds nicer :D. Better press and media image for the good congressman, I guess.
-
Is he a congressional neophyte?
-
Oo. Bata pa yan. Naabutan ko pa sa UP. I was active for a bit sa student council politics and he was one of the more prominent activist sa campus. I guess he pursued his political career after college if he was able to graduate.
-
Here's an article about it. (http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/19/why-religious-symbols-and-ceremonies-should-be-banned-in-government-offices/)
-
second term in Congress.
Nice guy.
-
"All Men are created equal"
-
^
But some men are more equal than others.
-
Do you agree with Cebu's Bobit Avila?
Ban on religion is denying Filipino culture
Mind you, nobody knew about the Kabataan Partylist nor its representative Raymond Palatino and we really don’t know what his agenda is? Is it merely to stir controversy so that people would recognize him or his partylist or is this fellow truly an atheist? Whatever it is… this fellow should be censured for trying to destroy Filipino culture. We know too well that the youth is the hope of the Fatherland, but in destroying Filipino culture… this fellow wants to erase our rich religious and historical past.
From day one… one of the things that I never liked in the 1987 Constitution is the creation of the partylist system. This system was poorly thought of or ill-conceived and the various groups never really represented the marginalized sector which was the original purpose of the Partylist. This is why if there was a Constitutional Convention (concon) I would strongly propose that we abolish the partylist system… for it is a waste of taxpayer’s money. They also get their own pork barrels… and we don’t even know if the money these partylist members get can reach their groups.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=819468&publicationSubCategoryId=109
-
Priests, youth slam 'anti-God bill'
ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 06/20/2012 10:35 PM | Updated as of 06/20/2012 10:35 PM
MANILA, Philippines - Priests and youths have raised a howl over a congressman's proposal to ban prayer services and religious symbols in government offices.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/20/12/priests-youth-slam-anti-god-bill
Should God be 'banned' in gov't offices?
By David Dizon, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 06/19/2012 9:17 PM | Updated as of 06/20/2012 12:06 AM
...“There should be no religious icons, symbols and ceremonies in government offices. We recognize that we have more than 1 religion in the Philippines. Those Filipinos who go to government offices are not there to affirm their spiritual beliefs but to transact with government,” he told Punto por Punto host Anthony Taberna.
Palatino, who is Catholic, said he has received many complaints from government employees who are “forced” to attend Mass or other religious activities by their superiors even during office hours.
He criticized some government offices who do not transact business during lunch break because they hear Mass.
“There are people who go to government offices during lunch break and they can’t transact because there’s a Mass. Ano yung ma-i-interpret nila? Ito ba ay official na ine-endorse ng government agency?” he said.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/06/19/12/should-god-be-banned-govt-offices
-
The fastest-running chicken in the Philippines! This guy should be given an award :D :
Solon withdraws 'Ban God' bill, says sorry
By David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 06/22/2012 5:59 PM | Updated as of 06/22/2012 7:11 PM
MANILA, Philippines – Kabataan party-list led by Rep. Raymond Palatino withdrew Friday a controversial bill that seeks to ban prayer services and religious symbols in government offices.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/22/12/solon-withdraws-ban-god-bill-says-sorry
-
There should be a ban at least of MANDATORY religious services in government offices. I've heard that some government offices REQUIRE their employees to attend mass. Our government is supposed to be SECULAR, it's not supposed to endorse ANY religion whatsoever. It's stupid.
-
Mandatory religious services, of course.
OTOH, what if the government offices in Manila decided to replace their chapels, or give up some of their tight office space for mosques and Buddhist temples?
Then started displaying the Star of David and pictures of Siva, Rama or Ganesh along their halls and in their offices?
Do you think the CBCP and Catholic majority will mind? The protestant minority are already tolerating their blasphemous idols of saints and Mary.
-
....or better yet, yun mga Satanista. What if their religion requires slaughtering of chickens every noontime?
-
Lim: Tyranny
HOUSE Bill 6330 dubbed the Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act has stirred epic condemnation. The common thread of criticism for Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino’s bill which bans religious icons, symbols and ceremonies in government offices is that it curtails religious freedom.
But does it? It bans communal worship of any religion in the premises of a government office. It does NOT ban private worship of any religion by any individual even inside the confines of a government office. The prohibition is on public not private space.
Does Palatino truly misinterpret the Constitution that guarantees “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference?” Is it not discriminatory to non-Catholics when Catholic icons are displayed in government offices? Is it not preferential to the Catholic faith when Catholic rites are held inside government institutions?
Palatino critics say no one is being compelled to attend Catholic rites inside government offices. No office memo need be circulated. When the boss spearheads any event of any kind, all employees know it would bode better for them to participate.
It’s called moral suasion. It’s why we buy tickets to raise money for the boss’ pet projects. It’s why we buy direct-selling products the boss sells on the side. There is pressure, not necessarily force, to comply or to fall out of grace.
House Bill 6330 seeks to make the state religiously neutral in order to provide all citizens, regardless of faith, the same rights in terms of government. The bill does not seek to have individuals abandon their religion, only to separate matters of faith from matters of the state.
I understand this concept is completely alien to the majority of Filipinos. The Spanish friars, after all, ruled our nation, for 300 years. But you only have to read the books of our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, to see that the merger of church and state resulted in religious tyranny.
Palatino has been called crazy, his bill labeled nonsense but who’s really make sense here? Those who say that because the Philippines is 83 percent Catholic, the rest of the population should just shut up and bear with whatever the Catholic majority desires?
Are we saying that in a roomful of people, majority of whom agree to drink cyanide, the minority should just shut up and comply? This is a cult. Not a community. This is tyranny not democracy.
Reactions from both lay and ecclesiastical groups have been telling. Those who choose not to practice the predominant religion in this country are still persecuted for rejecting orthodoxy. That, I say, is curtailment of religious freedom.
Today, the Catholics are up in arms, saying that those who feel offended by Catholic rites and icons should simply shut up because they are the minority. I say beware of the tyranny of the majority. The Inquisition was a moment of great shame in history.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/opinion/2012/06/23/lim-tyranny-228385
-
There is no true Seperation of Church and State as Cory's constitution had Bishop Teodoro Bacani of Novaliches in the comcon.
The country would greatly benefit from a true seperation but alas no official can do this as the constituents are not educated enough to make it stick.
-
Separation of church and state part of this video on secularism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3YF73SNuY
-
isn't this a blatant violation of Separation of Church and State?
Cops in Cebu to go after 'bikini open' events during Holy Week
Organizers of "bikini open" events this Holy Week in Cebu and other parts of Central Visayas may face arrest, the Philippine National Police regional office warned Thursday.
Regional deputy for operations Senior Superintendent Orlando Ualat said they have teams to look out for such events, radio dzBB's Cebu affiliate Orchids Lapincao reported.
Ualat was quoted in the report as saying additional police personnel will be deployed to the teams, which have instructions to close down such events and arrest the organizers.
In the region, Cebu had been particularly wary of "bikini opens" during Holy Week following a controversial event in 2009.
At the time, then Governor Gwendolyn Garcia filed charges against sexy actresses involved in the bikini show on Bantayan Island in Cebu.
In 2010, one of the starlets involved, Jennifer Lee, apologized to Garcia at the provincial capitol.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/300263/news/regions/cops-in-cebu-to-go-after-bikini-open-events-during-holy-week
bakit walang nagpo-portesta regarding this?
-
Something worth learning and sharing. It's about a recent development in Utah.
"What irks Mormons, evangelicals, and any religious group seeking to force their dogmata and beliefs on the people is that despite their machinations, the bible is not, and never will be, the Constitution and America’s justice system is not about to let it be."
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/24/religious-conservatives-thrown-frenzied-panic-court-impose-biblical-law.html