For the advocate of Contraception the source of world's problem is this child ***
Engr. Jojo
Mr. Albert you are always pointing fingers to nations like USA, Britain, etc. and you even disown the infamous inquisition. Since my last reply was not able to reach your attention, I will answer point by point.
1. I was born Catholic, baptized Catholic, confirmed Catholic, educated in a Catholic High School and my marraige was solemnized by a Catholic Priest. What made me unaffiliated religiously now a days are Bible Truths that I have discovered and the dark history of the Roman Catholic Church. At present I am attending Bible studies in private homes of the members of International Bible Students’ Association, they called themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that is the reason I can’t give you my religious affiliation, because I am not yet one of them.
2/3. The suggestion about Peter’s heirarchial authority and his whereabouts in the last days of his life: When James presided over the council on the question of ligthening the burden of Non-Jew converts, James declared: “Therefore, it is MY DECISION that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God…” (Acts 15:19-20). Peter is not INFALLABLE when he was REBUKED by Paul (a Non-Pope in the Catholic) for hypocrisy at Antioch. (Gal.2:11-20). Peter’s WHEREABOUTS during his last days: Peter, his wife and son Mark sent letter and greetings to the christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bthynia from BABYLON (Modern Iraq) (1 Peter 1:1; 5:12-14)
4. Baptism (Immersion in Water of Adults who beleive and do according to his own faith) YES it is in the Bible, SPRINKLING of “holy water” on the forehead of a faithless INFANT, NO; Confirmation NOt in the Bible, Extreme Aunction NOT in the Bible, MARRIAGE in the Bible, rites are performed by Secular Authority (Mat. 22:2,10; John 2:1,2) Jesus and followers were only guests. Burial Rites, NOT in the Bible…
5. ROYAL PRIESTHOOD of 144,000 thats why they are Royal Priesthood because they are to rule as Kings and Priest with Christ the Kings of Kings and High Priest for a thousand years. (Rev. 5:9-10; 7:4; 14:1)they will represent the twelve tribes of the “Spiritual Israel” (Israel at heart, as the fleshly Israel have long been dispersed with Judah and Benjamin tribes were remnants). They are referred in the Bible by Christ as. “First Fruit” (Rev. 14:4), “Kingdom of Priest and Kings”, (Rev.5:10) “Marked with the Fater’s and Christ’s names in their Foreheads”, (Rev. 14:1)”Little Flock”, (Lu 12:32; The countless Great Crowd from all the nations mentioned in Rev. 7:9 are not priestly as they are positioned in front of the throne and of Jesus Christ. Isa. 66:1 God said, “Heaven is my throne while earth is my footstool…” since the Great Crowd in the apocaliptic vision of John is in front of the throne, they have the hope for salvation in the New Earth not Heaven unlike the 144,000 who will rule with Christ as kings and Priest for a thousand years. Their Subjects? the Great Crowd where I hope I will be one of them to survive the Great Tribulation.
As regards the bloodstain in the hands of the Pope. The infamous INQUISITION was a medieval Church Court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics as threats to ecclesiastical order. It started in Europe in 12th Century.The Papal Inquisition was formally instituted by Pope Gregory IX. The Protestant and Alumbrados seemed to be the major targets. At the time of Reformation, Pope Paul III created the Car4dinals’ commission as the final court of appeals. This Roman Inquisition was solidified in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V. It was only suppressed in Spain in 1834, in Portugal in 1821. In Rome , it was only 1908 that the Inquisition simplified and finally in 1965 Pope Paul VI redefined the task for furthering right doctrine rather than censuring heretics. The Protestants never had any inquisition of their own, they the VICTIMS. (Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge, Page 165)
Catholics condoning Wars during World War I & II, I have old picture of Cardinals, and Bishops blessing Allied Forces in Warsaw, Poland. I have many of them in World War I, and the fact5 that Catholic Chaplains are found in all Armed Forces of the World. THAT IS NOT A LIE MR. ALBERT. If you want I will Scan them and post in YOUTUBE to prove who is liar between us.
IS IT NOT HYPOCRISY IN HIGHEST LEVEL BRANDING CONTRACEPTION AS ANTI-LIFE WHEN THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH ARE GUILTY OF BLOODSHED IN INQUISITION AND IN PREVIOUS TWO WORLD WARS?
WHO INSTIGATED THE KILLING OF DR. JOSE RIZAL? WERE IT NOT THE FRIARS? Review your History Mr. Albert. There no need to debate publicly Mr. Albert, it would only be a waste of time.
Jon Paul 6 Oct, 2009
Oh la la! wow wow wee!!! i am learning so much here than my four years of jesuit education. i really welcome this discourse if only people can refrain from veering personal and hold their tempers. As has always been my position, i have reservations on historical accounts of the bible and even history books. most often than not, history is written in favor of those who write it or whom they write it for.
Debating the issues in this bill can never be solved using religion – simply because reiligion is a very sensitive and personal thing, a matter of faith. we must therefore approach this using reason.
The opposition argues that sex must only be used for procreation and that preventing life is immoral, the same way that masturbation is. what about the many sterile males and females in the population? must they not engage in sex because they can not procreate? While sex’s foremost purpose may be to procreate, it is also an expression of love and a physical way to experience nirvana at the point of orgasm.
St. Thomas Aquinas posits that many parts of our bodies have a purpose – given by God. Aquinas notes that semen plays a role in reproduction – that is its purpose. Any activity that involves thwarting the natural function of semen must be contrary to nature, and therefore morally wrong. Aquinas’ thinking on sexual ethics was hugely influential within the Roman Catholic Church. There are however quite a number of objections to this line of thinking from noted philosophers.
one is the unnatural use of body parts. The hands are not intended for walking, yet it is not immoral to use the hands for walking. The tongue is intended for speaking and tasting yet it is not immoral to use it for painting.
second is the inherent defect of the body. people without eyes, arms, legs and the sterile ones – must it be immoral for God, who created them, not to give them these parts to fulfill the various purposes? The sterile or “baog”, is it immoral for them to masturbate and engage in sex when their semen is not capable of reproduction?
from most of the objections however, i like the one from John Stuart Mill. he says ” what is natural and unnatural for humans is no indication of what is morally right or wrong”. “That a thing is unnatural, in any precise meaning that can be attached to the word, is no argument for its being blameless; since the most criminal actions are to a being like man, not more unnatural than most of the virtues”. meaning, it is not unnatural for man to be bad anymore than it is natural for him to be good. or still simplier, man has both the natural tendency to be good or bad. Therefore, what is natural or unnatural for man has nothing to do with morality, after all, morality is but a conformity of ideals of a certain group or society. what may be moral in the middle-east (having four wives)is immoral in Christian Philippines. and so on and so forth.
If reason can show that the moral justifications offered for condemning the use of condoms are, in fact, intellectually bankrupt, then reason might even just contribute towards saving countless lives.
Albert6 Oct, 2009
I was busy the whole day folks but will post my reponse soon. Like John Paul I am enjoying the discussions here.
Engr. Jojo 6 Oct, 2009
@Jon Paul kudos to your position… May I also share something on my mind. There are things they called amoral, which neither moral nor immoral. Chemistry is amoral, science is amoral and maybe politics is amoral.
There are also things moralists closely consider as immoral. Concubinage, Incest, Polygamy, Impregnating a woman other than one’s wife, contraception, etc. In this present generation surely these things are immoral, but what moralists consider immoral may no be immoral and allowed by GOD if they accomplish HIS purpose.
In the history of mankind these immoral things were committed by people to accomplish God’s purpose. Please Consider, Adam and Eve and their descendants committed incest for mankind to multiply. Lot committed incest with his daughters, Abraham’s wife Sarah was his first cousin (or was she his sister Gen, 20:2) whatever it was but that was incest. Abraham impregnated his maid servant Hagar to give birth to Ismael though his wife was Sarah. Those acts were supposedly immoral acts, yet Abraham was a FRIEND of God. Solomon with more that 300 wives and more than 900 concubines, that was immoral in the moralists’ perception, yet Solomon was loved by God so much that He became the lineage of the Messiah.
Contraception maybe immoral to moralists but since it would accomplish greater good for mankind nowadays especially if the inhabited earth is almost losing its capability to feed all the people of the world, this would surely be allowed by God.
That is only my own opinion, moralist can negate as long as they wanted as long as they can offer alternative to the problems of feeding the ballooning population.
Jon Paul7 Oct, 2009
Jojo, i agree with your observations and there are more that i can think of but there’s no need to mention them anymore as your sharing was quite clear to me.
In the 1990s there was an item on discovery channel that told of a celestial body (an object resembling a planet) that seemed to orbit the sun differently from the directions of the existing planets. If the earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours (one day) and revolves around the sun in 365 days (one year), this interesting object was estimated to revolve around the sun in 3,600 years our time. meaning that the object’s one year, in our parlance, is 3,600 years in our time. in layman’s term, this object, if inhabited by beings, is way way advance than the humans on earth. in the interim years, nothing was heard again of this obscure object.
Before i even heard about that “planet”, i was already reading the series of books by Zecharia Sitchin. The first book titled “Genesis Revisited” was very interesting. It said that man was planted on earth. Highly intelligent and advance beings came to earth in search for gold and other elements. The apes (our ancestors according to Charles Darwin) were found perfect for the job of mining the elements. And they “created” a woman out of the man’s rib (bone marrow transplant). Biblical people spoke of God as a shining object which was actually a shining spaceship. The story of Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah mentioned about the angels who became the people’s object of lust. They were actually aliens in their shiny outfits. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was brought about by bombs and explosives similar to what we have today but was unthinkable at that time. The tower of babel was built in the hope or reaching God (the spaceships hovering above), so the aliens decided to confuse the people by teaching them different languages.
The above samples of what the book says could either be ridiculous or interesting. The writer claims more than 30 years of research to corroborate his alternative accounts. and that is just one book in a series of 12 which i have all read. Sitchin says, that we just have to have an open mind. after all, who knows that the earth is just a part of a vaster master plan.
My point here is, no religion has the monopoly of truths. as human beings aspiring to attain our own divinities, we must continue to endeavor to learn from every resource available. we must think outside the box if we want to learn more. God, in his infinite wisdom, would want us to explore.
hhhhhmmm, i hope that was an interesting story for everyone.
Engr. Jojo 7 Oct, 2009
@Jon Paul, I almost missed two very important points (Biblical and Medical) that Mr. Albert is trying to deceive Pro RH Bill:
1. The fallacy of Albert’s interpretation of Jeremiah 1:5 when he attributed the Bible verse to Contraception with his side comment is Upper case letters. Let me direct your attention to Albert’s Oct. 2, 2009 response to your previous comment. Quote:
“The Bible is clear on this:
Jeremiah 1:5 ‘Before I formed you thee in the belly I know thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctify thee and I ordauned thee a prophet to the nations’
NOW, THE CONTRACEPTIVE VIEW IS THAT BEFORE YOU CAN BE BORN I WILL KILL YOU WITH PILLS SO THAT YOU WILL NOT DEVELOP INTO LIFE. I WILL PREVENT YOUR COMING INTO THIS WORLD. YOU ARE NOTHING. I ONLY NEED THE NEED THE JOY OF SEX BUT NOT THE EFFECT OF IT. YOU ARE A PROBLEM TO ME.” Unquote.
After that, he was proud to say, “YOu see the contrast”, as if he scored pogi points. But, Albert is very WRONG, this is DECEIT. This is NOT CONTRACEPTIVE VIEW, this is ABORTIVE VIEW. The Bible writer said “IN THE BELLY” where the womb of a woman is, not in the scrotum of a man. Therefore, the union of Sperm and the Egg Cell is already made, thus there was LIFE already although not yet in Fetal form. Biblical reason:, ONLY JESUS CHRIST HAS PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE. No damage done by contraception!!!
2. Mr. Albert always mentioned Abortifacient Contraceptive Pills. I was forced to research in my Medical Encyclopedia Volume and not satisfied, I surfed the internet for the subject and even ask my Doctor cousin. The result, there is no such thing as Abortifacient Contraceptive Pills, what is there is a medicine called RU 486 that when used with Prostaglandins is 85% effective to kill a fetus within the first 6 weeks after the last menstrual period. It is under trial in the United States as an Abortifacient and its use against Cancer. (Grolier Encyclopeddia of Knowledge under Abortion)
@Albert, if you are bankrupt of ideas, facts (Biblical, Medical, etc.) to support your claim of the immorality of Contraception, please do not resort to Deception. We are not tanga. Sen Noynoy is right in supporting RH Bill.
Charlie 7 Oct, 2009
@john paul, have you read “conversations with god” by neale donald walsch? i must admit that after reading it, i become more spiritual, much better than my old religious self. it teaches the very important gift that god gave to humans — “free will”. do what ever you want, as long as you don’t destroy all living things around you (yes, humans, animals, plants, the environment). that simple. do good deeds and it will come back to you tenfold.
what’s RH Bill got to do with it? i’m responsible for my own body, i have my own free-will, nobody can force me to do the things i don’t want to. if i use contraceptives, it’s up to me. all the authorities and church leaders can do is inform me the pros and cons. no need for threats or coercion.
Jon Paul 7 Oct, 2009
Jojo, i noticed that quote too but didn’t give it much thought because i am happy and comfortable with my conviction on this issue. i was just taken aback when you wrote of the biblical reason: “only jesus christ has pre-human existence”. this struck a chord in me because my current spirituality is anchored on my belief in reincarnation and the natural laws (like the law of cause and effect, the law of attraction, etc.)Most of us have pre human existence being souls who may have been reincarnating time and again. There are also new souls who have no previous lives on this plane. But yes, even if we have pre-human existence, in the form of souls, there is still no damage by contraception because there is still no union of the cells in which a soul can enter and become “life.”
Charlie, i have heard about that book but haven’t really read it. that should be an interesting read for sure. i will order it right away from Borders. i don’t know if you have read the “celestine prophecy” by james redfield and its sequel. The insights discussed there are so “insightful”. reminds me of the situation here on the debates and heated arguments. i perfectly understand where these passions are coming from. Suggest you try to get a hold of the book, if you haven’t already, it will enrich your understanding of human behaviour in relation to spirituality. and while at it, add in your list Rhonda Byrne’s “The Secret” and Eckhart Tolle’s “A New Earth”. These should make great reads for the rest of the year.
Jon Paul 7 Oct, 2009
Albert is conpicuously missing. must be busy researching and outlining his thoughts. Brace for a biblical bomb Jojo!!!:) i’m going to bed now.
mary 7 Oct, 2009
@Charlie, fellow believer of free will, there are many of us who follow this personal philosophy pero ang nakikita ni Albert dito ay: you are your own god, you are a religion unto yourself which is a distortion. Nakikita nila ang kawalan ng complete authority ng church over us pero hindi nila nakikita yung ating daily effort to be good and obey the church of our own free will at hindi dahil sa takot or forced obedience. Hindi makabuluhan ang forced obedience at blind faith. Yung bukal sa puso, isip at kaluluwa ang mas wagas na paniniwala. Ibaling natin sa Reproductive Health ang pag iisip na ito. May karapatan ang mga tao para malaman kung ano nga ba ang mga paraan ng family planning, paano maalagaan ng reproductive health ng mga kababaihan, hindi lang naman condom and pills ang concern ng bill na ito, bakit nawawala sa focus ang debate ng antis and pros at linilimit lang sa condom at pills. How about yung aspeto ng health dito, bakit tila hindi na napapansin, mas mananaig ba ang condom kasya kalusugan ng mga kababaihan? Ang akin, let us educate our people para naman maging informed choice yung kanila. At kasama rin naman dyan sa information/education nga mga kababaihan ang natural family planning method na may basbas ng simbahan. Kung yung natural family planning method ay pwedeng malaman e bakit yung ibang methods ay bawal na? Kung susundan natin ang argument that birth control is anti-life e di dapat pati natural planning ay anti-life din dahil nagpipigil din yang ng pangbubuo ng life hindi ba. Bakit tila may double standard dito?
Charlie: i’m responsible for my own body, i have my own free-will, nobody can force me to do the things i don’t want to.
Indeed God gave us the free will, but free will, if not properly guided, can be corrupted. It is said that the object of the will is good. The supreme good being God himself, so man’s free will is always attracted or has natural propensity to God. Evil choices arises from improper inclination to what we perceived as good. In the context of RH Bill, reducing population through the use of contraceptives, is being viewed as good since there will be less mouth to feed, while retaining the pleasures of sex thus avoiding responsibility. Everyone seems to like the idea. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that since everyone is ok with contraception, then its definitely right.
“Huwag kang susunod sa karamihan na gumawa ng masama; ni magbibigay patotoo man sa isang usap, na ang kiling ay sa karamihan upang sirain ang kahatulan:” (Ex 23:2)
Indeed you are responsible for your body. But as a christian, such statements is a far cry from the words of the Master: “This is my body which is given for you…” (cf. Lk 22:19) But the underlying idea from your statement is: “Katawan ko ito, walang buhay na sisibol dito hangga’t hindi ko pinapayagan, kaya gagamit ako ng pildoras para walang buhay ng mabuo sa katawan ko while I’m having sex.” The root cause is basically selfishness. An inverted form of love.
Mary: Hindi makabuluhan ang forced obedience at blind faith.
Eh sino po ba ang advocate ng forced obedience? Ang simbahan? Diniktahan ka ba ng Catholic Church kung sinong iboboto mo? Diniktahan ka na magsimba tuwing linggo? Diniktahan ka ba na maghulog ka ng 10% ng sweldo mo sa donation boxes?
Hindi forced obedience ang hinihingi ng simbahan. Ang hinihingi ng simbahan ay irespeto ang pananampalataya hinggil sa kasagraduhan ng buhay.
Mary: May karapatan ang mga tao para malaman kung ano nga ba ang mga paraan ng family planning, paano maalagaan ng reproductive health ng mga kababaihan, hindi lang naman condom and pills ang concern ng bill na ito, bakit nawawala sa focus ang debate ng antis and pros at linilimit lang sa condom at pills.
For the simple reason na ang CONTRACEPTION ay anti-life. Other provisions of the bill which supports life, or life promoting, life enhancing, walang problema.
Mary: Ang akin, let us educate our people para naman maging informed choice yung kanila.
Eh mali nga ang ituturo eh. Ang ituturo, mahirap ang buhay, ang dagdag na bibig na pakakain ay dagdag pasanin. Kaya ang solusyon, contraception, para kahit mag sex ang mag asawa, walang buhay na mabuo, at iwas responsibilidad. Biruin mong gawing eseential medicine ang contraception? Medicine is supposed to protect and enhance life. Pero kung ito ay pumipigil sa pagkakabuo ng buhay, hindi na yan medicine, lason na yan.
Jojo: After that, he was proud to say, “YOu see the contrast”, as if he scored pogi points. But, Albert is very WRONG, this is DECEIT. This is NOT CONTRACEPTIVE VIEW, this is ABORTIVE VIEW. The Bible writer said “IN THE BELLY” where the womb of a woman is, not in the scrotum of a man. Therefore, the union of Sperm and the Egg Cell is already made, thus there was LIFE already although not yet in Fetal form. Biblical reason:, ONLY JESUS CHRIST HAS PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE. No damage done by contraception!!!
Pasingit lang. Indeed there is a mention of “In the belly” but the text also mentioned the word “Before”.
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”(Jr 1:5 KJV)
Yung termino bang “Before I formed thee in the belly” ay nangangahulugang meron nang union ng sperm at egg cell sa sinapupunan ng babae? Di ba wala pa? Pwede sana yang argumento mo kung walang “before” sa teksto, kaso meron eh. Ito ay tumututukoy sa pangyayari way before mabuo yung tao sa sinapupunan. Which also means way before the union of sperm and egg cell. Yung zygote kasi, which is the union of sperm and egg cell, may forma na. May buhay na. So yung phrase na “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” ay tumutukoy sa momento bago pa magkaroon ng porma ang tao, which is not necessarily fetal form.
The fact kasi na sinasabi mong may buhay na, eh di tao na yun. So any means to destroy the zygote is immoral and evil.
Kapatas 7 Oct, 2009
Jojo: @Jon Paul kudos to your position… May I also share something on my mind. There are things they called amoral, which neither moral nor immoral. Chemistry is amoral, science is amoral and maybe politics is amoral.
Science is amoral if viewed in isolation, apart from anything else. But if we are talking about science and HOW IT IS APPLIED OR PERFORMED, then science ceases to be amoral, it will be either moral or immoral.
If science is used for the betterment of people’s lives, for enhancing and promoting life, then it is moral. If used otherwise, then it is immoral. If chemistry is used to produce cheap but effective drugs for ailments, its moral. If chemistry is used to make bombs and illegal drugs, then it becomes immoral. Same goes with politics. The measure of whether a thing is moral or immoral is whether the thing is used to promote, support, or enhances life. Contrary to these, the thing being considered is immoral.
Sabi nga ni Sir Joey, magkabilaan ang mundo. Dichotomy. Moral or immoral. Walang gitna.
Sa kaso ng RH Bill, dahil merong probisyon tungkol sa contraception, which is CONTRA-CONCEPTION, the bill is immoral. Against life eh.
mary 7 Oct, 2009
@Kapatas, you have a distorted view of the opinion of other people. I said hindi makabuluhan ang forced obedience and blind faith bilang pananaw ko sa faith. And here you come asking sino ang advocate ng forced obedience, etc etc. Pati yung mga simbahang humihingi ng 10% na hindi kasali sa usaping ito, sinagasaan mo na. Igalang mo ang ibang religious sects para makatamo ka rin ng paggalang bilang tagapagsalita sa mga sinasabi mo. Who are you to conclude na mali nga ang itinuturo e hindi pa nga naumpisahan ang pagtuturo dahil hindi pa nga na approve yung bill. Preemptive and abortive yata ang istilo mo. Sa pananaw mo, anti-life and contra-conception pero hindi lahat ng tao ay ganyan ang pananaw so anong gagawin mo sa mga taong taliwas ang pananaw sa iyo? Doom them to hell? May karapatan din silang ma-educate ukol sa bagay na ito as much as you have the right to insist on your own argument. Hindi porque taliwas ang isang argumento sa iyong paniniwala ay pwede ng irepress with a dismissive, for the simple reason that contra-conception is anti-life. This is still debated on. Hindi pa tapos sila Albert, Engr Jojo and John Paul.
mary 7 Oct, 2009
@Kapatas, and why do your kind always look for the evil where there is no evil tulad ng sinabi mo kay Charlie. You are putting words in his mouth.
But the underlying idea from your statement is: “Katawan ko ito, walang buhay na sisibol dito hangga’t hindi ko pinapayagan, kaya gagamit ako ng pildoras para walang buhay ng mabuo sa katawan ko while I’m having sex.” The root cause is basically selfishness. An inverted form of love.
Ang mahirap sa mga preachers of morality, binubulatlat niyo ang immorality maski wala pa. Tulad nga nitong si Charlie, ang sabi niya,
i have my own free-will, nobody can force me to do the things i don’t want to. if i use contraceptives, it’s up to me.
E inasume mo na that sa exercise ng free will niya e masama ang gagawin niya. Why assume the worst? May capacidad din ang tao na magpaka moral at magpakabait. Bakit hindi itong positibong human capacity ang i presume mo? Hindi kaya salamin ito ng katauhan mo?
Kapatas 7 Oct, 2009
Jojo: IS IT NOT HYPOCRISY IN HIGHEST LEVEL BRANDING CONTRACEPTION AS ANTI-LIFE WHEN THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH ARE GUILTY OF BLOODSHED IN INQUISITION AND IN PREVIOUS TWO WORLD WARS?
Pasingit lang ulit. I think you forgot to mention that during that middle ages, heresy is a crime against the state. Inquisition was instituted in order to determine the heretics. Punishments are being carried out by the state and not by the Church.
“With the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire,heresy came to be considered a crime against the state, punishable by civil law.”
Yung mga taong napatunayang guilty ng heresy ay inaanyayahan na magbalik-loob sa simbahan at iwanan ang heresiya.
“First of all the heretic was exhorted to give up his heresy, and many did. Only those who refused, or fell back into heresy were handed over to the state. We must look on these events in the light of those times, and not in the light of the 20th century.” http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/q11.htm
Those who refused to give up their heresies are excommunicated but it is the State that carried out the punishment:
“The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment.”
At kahit sa bibliya, merong INQUISITION:
Dt 19:17-19 (KJV)
17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand BEFORE THE LORD, BEFORE THE PRIESTS AND JUDGES, which shall be in those days;
18AND THE JUDGES SHALL MAKE DILIGENT INQUISITION: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: SO SHALT THOU PUT THE EVIL AWAY FROM YOU.
So merong inquisition sa bibliya. DILIGENT INQUISITION. Ginagawa ng mga pari at hukom sa hangaring alisin ang kasamaan sa komunidad. Kung gumagawa ng Inquisition ang mga Israelita, bakit kaming mga katoliko lang ang pinupuntirya mo?
At wag mong sabihing walang pinapatay sa inquisition na binabangit sa bibliya:
Esther 2:23 (KJV)AND WHEN INQUISITION was made of the matter, it was found out; THEREFORE THEY WERE BOTH HANGED ON A TREE: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.
So kitang-kita sa teksto ang INQUISITION in action. Si Bigthan at Teresh na napatunayang nagkasala sa isinagawang INQUISTION ay binitay. Bakit hindi mo rin sinisisi ang mga Israelita? Bakit mga katoliko lang? Eh nasa bibliya naman talaga ang inquisition?
Yung sinasabi mong “guilty ng bloodshed” ang simbahan during World War I and II ay napakalayo sa katotohanan. Hindi Simbahang Katoliko ang nagpasimuno ng gera at hindi mga pari namin ang nagpapatay sa mga biktima ng digmaan. Mga pari namin ang pinatay during war at mga simbahan namin ang sinira at binomba kaya wag mong baligtarin ang katotohanan.
Jojo: WHO INSTIGATED THE KILLING OF DR. JOSE RIZAL? WERE IT NOT THE FRIARS?
Sinong friars? Give us names. Mahirap yang ginagwa mo na namimintang kayo:
Ex 23:1 (Ang Biblia) Huwag kang magkakalat ng kasinungalingan: huwag kang makikipagkayari sa masama, na maging saksi kang sinungaling.
Alam mo at alam ko, na gobyerno ng Espanya ang pumatay kay Rizal at hindi mga pari. At nakakalimutan mo ata na mga paring katoliko at hindi mga ministro ng Jehovah’s Witnesses ang kasama ni Rizal nung martsa nya papuntang Bagumbayan bago sya barilin:
“Mga 6:30 ng umaga, tumunog ang trumpeta sa Furza Santiago, udyat para simulan ang pagmartsa sa Bagumbayan, kung saan bibitayin si Rizal. Apat na sundalong may ripleng de-bayoneta ang nangunguna sa martsa. Nasa likuran nila si Rizal na payapang naglalakad, nasa gitna siya ng kanyang tagapagtanggol (Ten. Luis Taviel de Andrade) at DALAWANG HESWITANG PARI (Padre march at padre Vilaclara).” [Jose Rizal, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, p.330]
Kaya wag po nating gamitin si Rizal para atakihin ang Simbahang Katoliko. Tingnan po ninyo ang buong buhay ni Rizal, nabuhay at namatay na katoliko. Hindi nagpaconvert sa ibang sekta.
Sa katunayan, isa sa dahilan kung bakit di natuloy ang kasal ni Rizal kay Nellie Boustead ay sapagkat ayaw nyang magpaconvert sa Protestantism.
“Dahil mabuting Protestante, nais talaga ni Nelly Boustead na maging Protestante si Rizal bago sila ikasal. Si Rizal na may matatag na paninindigan ay hindi sang-ayon dito. Oo nga’t naging Mason siya ngunit NANATILI PA RIN SIYANG TAPAT SA KATOLISISMO, ang relihiyon ng kanyang angkan.” [Jose Rizal, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, p. 226]
Ito ang ibig sabihin ni Rizal sa mga bagay na nawala sa kanya sa di pag sang-ayon sa Protestantismo. Makikita ito sa kanyang sulat kay Padre Pastells, Nov. 11, 1892:
“As to my being a Protestant, Your Reverence would not say such a thing if you only knew what I lost for not declaring myself in agreement with Protestant tenets. had I not always respected religious ideas; had I regarded religion as a science of conveniences or an art of enjoying life; I would now be a rich and free man crowned with honors, instead of being a poor deportee. Rizal, a Protestant! Something in me moves me to laughter, but I am restrained by my respect for all that you say.”
Kaya di po talaga uubra ang paggamit nyo kay Rizal para atakihin ang simbahan. Lumang tugtugin na po iyan.
Mary: @Kapatas, you have a distorted view of the opinion of other people. I said hindi makabuluhan ang forced obedience and blind faith bilang pananaw ko sa faith. And here you come asking sino ang advocate ng forced obedience, etc etc.
Eh sino ba ang pinapatungkulan mo? Di ba ang simbahang katoliko? Wag nang magdeny dahil obvious naman eh. Hindi tayo dinidiktahan ng simbahan. Sinasabi lang ng simbahan ang katotohanan which WE, FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, ought to obey. Kung ayaw mong sumunod,nasa saiyo na yun. Pero indi mo pwedeng pigilan ang simbahan sa ginagawa nya.
Mary: Pati yung mga simbahang humihingi ng 10% na hindi kasali sa usaping ito, sinagasaan mo na. Igalang mo ang ibang religious sects para makatamo ka rin ng paggalang bilang tagapagsalita sa mga sinasabi mo.
Eh kaninong simbahan ba ang tinuligsa ko? May pinangalanan ba ako? Ang walang sugat ay di dapat na magdamdam.
Mary: Who are you to conclude na mali nga ang itinuturo e hindi pa nga naumpisahan ang pagtuturo dahil hindi pa nga na approve yung bill.
Eh ano ba ang ituturo? Ituturo ba nila hwag gumamit ng contraception? The fact na yung bill ay sumusuporta sa malawakang paggamit ng contraception ay patunay na papunta sa promotion ng contraception ang “education” na isasagawa. Alangan namang contrary sa contraception ang ituro di ba?
Mary:Sa pananaw mo, anti-life and contra-conception pero hindi lahat ng tao ay ganyan ang pananaw so anong gagawin mo sa mga taong taliwas ang pananaw sa iyo? Doom them to hell?
At kailan pa naging PRO-LIFE and CONTRA-CONCEPTION aber?
At pwede mo bang ipakita yung pahayag ko na doom to hell ang mga taong taliwas sa paniniwala ko? Wala kasi akong natatandaang sinabi ko yun eh.
Mary: May karapatan din silang ma-educate ukol sa bagay na ito as much as you have the right to insist on your own argument. Hindi porque taliwas ang isang argumento sa iyong paniniwala ay pwede ng irepress with a dismissive, for the simple reason that contra-conception is anti-life.
Eh sino bang nagdimiss? Sino ba ang nagrepress? I’m just voicing my opinion for others to think about. Anong masama dun? Masama ba na sabihin ang totoo?
Gal 4:16 (Ang Biblia) "Kaya nga ako baga’y naging kaaway ninyo, sa pagsasabi ko sa inyo ng katotohanan?"
Masama bang sabihin na imoral ang CONTRACEPTION?
Jojo: Contraception maybe immoral to moralists but since it would accomplish greater good for mankind nowadays especially if the inhabited earth is almost losing its capability to feed all the people of the world, this would surely be allowed by God.
How can CONTRACONCEPTION be good? Can you guarantee that reduction in population will result to the eventual development of our nation? Even if you managed to reduced our population by half, if we have corrupt leaders, nothing will change.
Your idea that the earth is losing its capability to feed all people is wrong. There is hunger and famine because of the injustice in the distribution of resources. What the government should do is to level the playing field by making policies that will ensure that every Filipino will be given equal opportunities.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment