The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[pakinimo]

---

ang question nimo is asa raman gihapon padong ang donation, kana dugay ng natubag.

Ayaw bali baliha akong words kay akong pangutana "nganong kinahanglan nindot ang simbahan?"

karon ato pasudlon ang imong gusto na "nganong dili naman lang jud simple" mao gitubag ka ni Siodenz na define simple

mo agree ko sa pangutana ni siodenz nga e define usa ang simple

simple: kugon way maintenance, tulo init way speaker mapaos ang pari, panington ang mga manimbahay

sus mangita giud mog lusot nga madugay ang sturya. haha.

Tan awa ng mga simbahan nga tag-as kaau grabe kaau ug gasto milyones, pero usa ra ka floor ka tawo ang ma accommodate, in ana ba, d kay pa kugon2x pamo dha para mulikay sa pangutana.

[SioDenz]

Unsa lagi definition anang SIMPLE? para maklaru bah...

[slabdans]

Ayaw bali baliha akong words kay akong pangutana "nganong kinahanglan nindot ang simbahan?"



sus mangita giud mog lusot nga madugay ang sturya. haha.

Tan awa ng mga simbahan nga tag-as kaau grabe kaau ug gasto milyones, pero usa ra ka floor ka tawo ang ma accommodate, in ana ba, d kay pa kugon2x pamo dha para mulikay sa pangutana.

Mao gani...para matubag ang imong pabgutana e define unsa ang simple para nimo...kay para namo simple naman na...wala man gani wifi diha

[noy]

a sad incident indeed.... ill just want to make it clear bro noy that while the Pope did that for the sake of the child, this should not be seen as an affirmation that FORNICATION or ADULTERY is being granted permission. As far as my memory serves me right, Church has not changed its teachings on this since 2, 014 years ago.

A lot of posters here think that since Francis baptized the child whose parents are guilty of fornication, the Church approves that SINGLE PARENTHOOD THROUGH IMMORAL MEANS as OK. Many of us here unfortunately did not get his message correctly.

Just a reflection from this incident: A lot of us don't consider it scandalous anymore that a young girl (A MINOR at that) has gone deeper into fornication and immorality at such a young age, because of bad parenting especially and questionable behaviors by the adults around her (media, friends, relatives).

For us, its usually more comfortable to label our own immoral behaviors as LOVE. We fornicate because we love somebody .. . We commit adultery because we fell in love and so on.... daghang palusot. I have also loved ones (not minors anymore) who are into this kind of situation but our elders made sure to voice out what they what they want to say no matter how harsh. Ang point here is, dili mausab and dili usbon sa mga young ones. Where our elders being judgemental? I dont think so. Nobody was asked to leave the house either but their actions were being pointed out as bad example.

We are more scandalized that someone has hurt somebody else's feelings. We badly need to set our priorities straight.

of course. nothing like that at all.. just the part that baptism should never be denied to anyone regardless of the child or person's history.. may the child be a product of pre marital relations even adultery..

although insakto ang pari sa iyang gipangsulti in terms of moral values pertaining to the sanctity of marriage and marital relations..
sayop ang iyang paagi.. unlike the Pope, although he maintains the same morals as that of the controversial priest as with the whole Catholic Church.. he accepted the parents child..their faults and respected their desire to have their child baptized.. in hope that the parents and everyone else would learn the morals of these sacred things through love and not through demoralization.. mao nay deprensya sa pari ug sa pope ug mao nay tumong sa akong gipost comparing the two..
but thank you for clarifying this.

just because we speak the truth,it doesn't mean we have the right to disrespect.

[brackitz]

Naa koi pangutana,

Nganu kinahanglan man nga nindot kaau ang simbahan dli pwede simple? What if katong gigamit pag construct sa milyones nga simbahan gitabang nalang sa mga tawo?

Una sa tanan bai, salamat kay ginindotan kaayu kas mga simbahan nga nagkantidad ug milyones...or at least nagkantidad ug 2 milyon nga simbahan. At least ang mga sama nimu naka sulti ug nindot kaayu sa mga simbahan nga gigastuhan ug labing minus 2 milyones.

Maski wa pa ka muhatag sa imung kaugalingong definition sa "simple", para nako tanan man siguro simbahan gitukod dili ing-ana ka complicated kay nganu naa man gyud gihapoy manimba. :P Ang simbahan, is center of worship...ampu-anan, angay lang sad siguro himoon ng presentable sa mga manimbahay kay temple gud na sa Ginoo. Maski nagkatidad na ug labing minus 2 milyones, simple ra gyud gihapon na kay wa man ny escalator,elevator, ug swimming pool sa sud. Sa ing-ana pud nga kantidad, at least makatabang na gyud na para pagpalig-on sa simbahan ug ubang pang panginahanglon sa sud. Salamat sa mga manimbahay ug sa mga nagtakad, i'm sure nag gahin na pud siguro ang mga taga simbahan para ihinabang sa mga tawong nanginahanlang ug angay'ng tabangan.

[noy]

Naa koi pangutana,

Nganu kinahanglan man nga nindot kaau ang simbahan dli pwede simple? What if katong gigamit pag construct sa milyones nga simbahan gitabang nalang sa mga tawo?

churches should depict the heavenly host, as heaven is grand..mao pud ang earthly churches..

Catholics believe that the Church is the house of God..
and Catholics give their highest regard to God.. therefore Catholics don't mind if the Church's design is grand because they believe that it should be in the first place..

there's a budget for the Church maintenance and construction, naa puy budget para sa outreach programs.
usually, these two priorities don't have to cross each other's path..but in some special cases..
the Church of course would go into priority details..
kung wala pa juy saktong pundo unya daghang kabos nga mga parokyano,
nganu magpatukod man ug dako nga simbahan? mao bitaw sa bukid gagmay ra ang simbahan..kasagaran kapilya ra..pero sige gihapun ang outreach.. kanang mga dagko nga simbahan nga daghang parokyano ug makahatag ug donasyon, naa pud na silay mga kapilyang gipang suportahan..spiritually and financially.

[God of the gaps]

Una sa tanan bai, salamat kay ginindotan kaayu kas mga simbahan nga nagkantidad ug milyones...or at least nagkantidad ug 2 milyon nga simbahan. At least ang mga sama nimu naka sulti ug nindot kaayu sa mga simbahan nga gigastuhan ug labing minus 2 milyones.

Maski wa pa ka muhatag sa imung kaugalingong definition sa "simple", para nako tanan man siguro simbahan gitukod dili ing-ana ka complicated kay nganu naa man gyud gihapoy manimba. :P Ang simbahan, is center of worship...ampu-anan, angay lang sad siguro himoon ng presentable sa mga manimbahay kay temple gud na sa Ginoo. Maski nagkatidad na ug labing minus 2 milyones, simple ra gyud gihapon na kay wa man ny escalator,elevator, ug swimming pool sa sud. Sa ing-ana pud nga kantidad, at least makatabang na gyud na para pagpalig-on sa simbahan ug ubang pang panginahanglon sa sud. Salamat sa mga manimbahay ug sa mga nagtakad, i'm sure nag gahin na pud siguro ang mga taga simbahan para ihinabang sa mga tawong nanginahanlang ug angay'ng tabangan.

in short mas importante pa ang temple sa ginoo kaysa sa mga nag suffer sa dalan kay gipang gutom..

matud pa ninyu, naa na tanan sa ginoo so pointless na nindotan ang iyang simbahan since siya ang tag iya sa tanan.

bisan unsa-on immoral jud ng religion.

ang saktong tubag ana, nag contest ang mga religion og panindotay og simbahan para daghang ma-attract og ma-recruit...more recruits, more money, more power.

[noy]

in short mas importante pa ang temple sa ginoo kaysa sa mga nag suffer sa dalan kay gipang gutom..

matud pa ninyu, naa na tanan sa ginoo so pointless na nindotan ang iyang simbahan since siya ang tag iya sa tanan.

bisan unsa-on immoral jud ng religion.

ang saktong tubag ana, nag contest ang mga religion og panindotay og simbahan para daghan ma recruit...more recruits, more money, more power.

sa imung mga gipangpost bai kay murag ikaw man muy immoral..hehehe

[reggielovescake]

because of various factors bro, culture, perspective of the author..historical and scientific accounts parallel to the bible..biblical translations..etc

for example the genesis flood..some would interpret it as a global flood as the author suggests via literal interpretation..but in history and archeaology, there's no trace og a global flood but results shows a massive flood taking place in mesopotamian area..therefore the flood was rather Local..

when the author of the book of genesis described the flood as seemingly global, perhaps he was writing about his interpretation..
and we can't blame the author for that, imagine you're on a boat in the vastness of the ocean with no dry land in sight and let's pretend that your understanding about geographical and nautical location is rather primitive..
you'd probably assume too that the whole earth is covered in water..
basin gani imung pagsabut pud sa whole earth is just as far as your eyes could reach pa jud...hehehe..so..

You're not answering the question bro. Ngano literal man ang uban and ang uban dili? Sama sa isa ka libro.. Kung basahon nimo literally and metaphorically and isa ka book, it is really stupid. Non-sense kaayo kung imong basahon ang book na ing.ana, you chose to believe what you deem is right and wrong morally.. not what is exactly written in the book.

bungoton kay Jewish man si Jesus.. see leviticus 19...long hair prohibition? probably with other group of people in the middle east but not with the Jews, they don't have such prohibition for men growing their hair long..diba si samson is described in the bible as someone who grew with long locks? then naa pay tribe sa mga nazirites who grew their hair long as dedication for God? samson was also a nazirite..

Unya na ni nako replyan wa pay time

the images of Jesus are just depictions and not actual portraits..so mao naay medyo puti, naay brown2x..naa puy itumon..probably wa makuha ang skin tone sa taga middle east sa artist..hehehe..naa puy nindut kaayo ug abs..naay uban wala..mao gani depiction diba? istrikto ra pud kaayo ka sa personal bro dah..hahahaha

Aw wala ra man, nag huna2 ra ko ky ang naka suwat sa bible, Thou shalt not make any images from heaven or under the sea. Dili man sad sa strikto2x but we're talking about what we believe here? Laen sad kayog the whole time abi nakog si Daniel Padilla ang name sakong gi idol2x unya ang tinoud pangalan kay Jericho Rosales diay.. Mo tou na lang gani ko, kanang insakto tanan facts dili lang based sa storya ras mga tao haha

[noy]

You're not answering the question bro. Ngano literal man ang uban and ang uban dili? Sama sa isa ka libro.. Kung basahon nimo literally and metaphorically and isa ka book, it is really stupid. Non-sense kaayo kung imong basahon ang book na ing.ana, you chose to believe what you deem is right and wrong morally.. not what is exactly written in the book.

sorry to dissapoint you bro but i believe i have answered your question. you asked why some text are taken literally while some aren't, so ang tubag kay because of various reasons. one of the many is the author's perspective..

mao tong naghatag ko ug example sa noah's flood..
the bible says, the whole earth was covered by the flood but in archaeology, there's no evidence of a worldwide flood..Plus..daghang mga races that predates the flood..so impossible kaayo nga kita tanan gikan ra nilang Noah...

so does this mean that the bible is wrong? Not necessarily..
could it be that when the author said that the earth was covered with water, he was just describing what he sees and what he perceives? Probably..
therefore, this verse in Genesis describing the whole earth being covered with water is not to be taken literally..

another point, God created man from dust..
does this mean that evolution is wrong? No..in fact Science shows a very strong case that human beings were indeed a product of evolution..
does this mean that the Bible is wrong? again not necessarily..this only disproves the literal take on that particular verse..
metaphorically, dust could represent nature..and the phrase God created man could mean..thousands of evolution years..
Truth cannot contradict truth..therefore this verse on creation is not to be taken literally..

kung di ni mao ang tubag para nimu, perhaps dili pud mao imung pangutana..hehehehe

Aw wala ra man, nag huna2 ra ko ky ang naka suwat sa bible, Thou shalt not make any images from heaven or under the sea. Dili man sad sa strikto2x but we're talking about what we believe here? Laen sad kayog the whole time abi nakog si Daniel Padilla ang name sakong gi idol2x unya ang tinoud pangalan kay Jericho Rosales diay.. Mo tou na lang gani ko, kanang insakto tanan facts dili lang based sa storya ras mga tao haha

haha..mao ganing depiction bro..kay dili actual protrait...

the images of Jesus in the Catholic Church does not suggest that mao jud na in absolute terms ang itsura ni Jesus...but its artistic portrayal is at least based from historical and traditional facts...so close to how Jesus really looked like..
kung gusto jud ka ug insakto detail per detail..aw strikto jud diay kaayo ka bai..hehehehe

hmmm..here we go with the exodus verse on images...again..hehehe
yes, we are not to make images..we are not to make images to be worshipped.
but Catholics do not worship the images..they're just representations..depictions...visual aids and the likes..but not for worship..
so that exodus verse doesn't really apply to the subject.