RELIGION

[richard79]

---

I would just like to add, don't you think nga better if a person is taught what is morally right and what is morally wrong sa childhood years niya, and introduce religion na sa later point sa life niya wherein he can think for himself na? That way, he will take religion seriously kasi he chose to be in that religion. What do you guys think?

I think this is good.. but we should not just make him choose which religion he wants but also if he wants one or not.

I disagree. I can't say for the other faith groups but for Catholics, having your children baptized and taught the Catholic faith as soon as possible is a must. Our Catholic faith is more precious than our secular education if we believe that the afterlife is more important than this life, and we never wait for our children to reach a certain age to decide whether he should go to school or not. If the state requires parents to send their children to school so does God require parents to teach their children about him, which is part of the "job description" of religion.

This would lead me to another question that i would like to ask... which part of the bible that states infancy baptism... where in fact Jesus was baptized when he was a older and now you were saying that you follow the Bible? please enlighten me!

[HoundedbyHeaven]

First of all, as much as possible i dont want to name any christian denominations existing because the fact is both catholic and non catholic denominations are not perfect but what im trying to say again and again nga one of these denominations are just doing most of the time complying on their weekend rituals without focusing mainly on the people if they have fully delivered the word of God or not.

If "...one of these denominations are just doing most of the time complying on their weekend rituals without focusing mainly on the people if they have fully delivered the word of God or not...", exactly which one? Why can't you name which one?

Now speaking of time sa ilang pagdeliver sa Word of God... if you try to check personally.... ambot kung kasabot mo sa akong gipasabot.... NAA JUY kalahian!!! Ang ako lang kay it seems people are just taking the way it is because mao naman nay naandan nila! NABUTA lang sila sa kamatooran nga ang ilang gisimbahan dili makahatag nila og spiritual fulfillment mostly!

So which can deliver spiritual fulfillment mostly?

Now sa katong gaingon nga murag perfect akong simbahan.... ako nanang ginaexplain sa una nakong mga post nga walay simbahan nga perfect.... but you cant help compare which church is best for your soul most of the time!!!

Exactly which church is "best for your soul most of the time"?

Cge let's talk about the priest or the pastors... we should admit the fact that they are all humans they commit mistakes because humans commits mistake no matter how religious or prayerful they are.... but if you look closely.... which has the worst counts and situations nga masayop sila....

You seem to have an exact count of the mistakes of priests and pastors, can you detail these here?

NOW please dont get me wrong if ever mo accuse mo that im an anti catholic (not being defensive) coz im not... you have no idea who i am.... the thing is im just questioning these things which church and the messenger of God could satisfy and enlighten your soul.... there's no church who can save ya or whatever but better check first kung asa ka nag simba.... basig sayop diay ka!!!

If no church can save you, how does going to the "correct church" make any difference? I may be going to the "correct church" but it still can't save me in the end, following your funny line of reasoning?

[impertinent]

There is no business like religion.... that would make you an instant millionaire... it is free from paying tax.... also free from working overnight.....

[HoundedbyHeaven]

This would lead me to another question that i would like to ask... which part of the bible that states infancy baptism... where in fact Jesus was baptized when he was a older and now you were saying that you follow the Bible? please enlighten me!

Well, which part of the Bible states that infants should not be baptized?

True, the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized at probably age 30. But was His baptism exactly like our baptism? Was He baptized to have His original sin removed like we had ours (unless of course you were not baptized using the Trinitarian formula?

In the same way that the Trinity is not explicitly stated, not written word for word in the Bible, so is infant baptism not explicitly stated in the Bible. It is, however, implied. We have, for example, St. Peter in Acts 2:38 calling for the baptism of all so that the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the "promise", could be received:

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

We also have in Acts 16:15 the household of Lydia (implying the inclusion of her children) baptized:

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.

The same is repeated in Acts 16:33 where the entire house of the keeper of the prison (where St. Paul and St. Silas was detained) was baptized. Also, the house of Crispus, the rule of synagogue, was also baptized in Acts 18:8.

In 1st Cor 1:16, St. Paul said he baptized the household of Stephanus:

And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Again, "household" and "house" implies the inclusion of children, perhaps from those who still could not walk to those who can. You cannot find a verse in the Bible that states some of members of these households or houses were excluded.

Thank you for the opportunity to enlighten you. I hope and pray you that have been truly enlightened.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Similar ra man gud cya to Government in the sense that religion tries to control how people act, kaso religion does this through conscience...that each being has a soul, that God exists and there is a life after death(in the case of Christianity)...while government does this by imposing rules/laws based on human nature.

But the Government or the State is concerned only with the temporal affairs of mankind while religion is concerned with the eternal affairs. The Church is also historically the conscience of the State. When you take away God and leave Government on its own, you end up being a fascist or a communist country-- in short, chaos. We have had those sad times in history, in case you forget. The bloodiest wars in the history of mankind are the wars of the 20th century, which are the wars of irreligion. All the horrors of the religious wars in all history pale in comparison with the horrors of Stalin's reign, which even surpassed that of Hitler's.

Pero dba, they both have the same objective? for us humans to live harmoniously. my point is, politics ra man gihapon ang religion (maybe im making a hasty generalization here or at least this generalization applies only to dominant religions) and church-leaders are still human so subjective ra gihapon...and people need to wake-up and decipher what is the truth, dli dawat-kiti dawat lng because nang-galing sa church...that's why we have brains!...to reason, to choose, to decide, to conclude.

The Church has the same objectives of the State for mankind, at least those that are not opposed to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ (which is the Church's teachings). But the Church is not limited to those. She is also concerned with the eternal welfare of a human being after death.

Church leaders are only human? Again, what else is new? But the Lord Jesus Christ made the Church infallible in matters of faith and morals-- that is, because of the power and the presence of the Holy Spirit in Her, she could never err in believing and teaching on matters of faith and morals. And the Church is a mother, after all-- that is, She always explains why She teaches what She teaches, as dacs pointed out. Do we even bother to sit down and listen carefully to her explanations?

And dont you guys think nga one of the main reasons why the state of the Philippines is like this right now is because of religion pud? (well, of course you also have to consider our history, our colonizers, our society) I hate to name names but take Roman Catholic for example coz it's the one that's dominant.

There is a grain of truth in your observation but the cause you point to is wrong. I could never have said it any better than dacs, "if religion has got something to do with it, Filipino Catholics have the worst application of it." Take for example this criticism of the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Franco, in his speech during the July 9 Plenary Assembly of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines:

I think...it is necessary and laudable for Bishops and priests to come out on...morality...in the political arena, especially when...rights and the common good are trampled upon.But they are out of their place when they get into direct action, attending rallies on strictly political issues, siding with one group or the other, sponsoring practical solutions moved by the desire of creating a new situation better than the previous one, but in reality being used to favor the interest of a part, of the hidden agenda of those who want to use us for the purpose of grabbing power.

The late G.K. Chesterton once said something relevant to this point, he said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

Catholicism is a remnant of Medieval times man gud. That's why Renaissance came about, because of power-conflict between church and state...and the control of the church was waning na.

We have to admit na tao lng din po ang church leaders and possible na ma-corrupt sila. And in some ways, the Catholicism that we have now, is still a remnant of the Catholicism of the Medieval times brought and forced to us by Spain. You also have to consider how it was taught during those 300 years. Christianity was forced on us...it was like a duty...which is not supposed to be.

You keep repeating this line that the Church is still a remnant of the Middle Ages. Are you implying that the Church is still foolishly believing in things dating back to the Middle Ages that have been proven wrong by science? If so, cite them all but one at a time?

What im driving is that, Nobody can stay in power for far too long. Ang religion kasi, hindi dapat itulad sa sapatos na nakasanayan na. For it to be effective, dapat constant care and upgrade para hindi maging lenient (which leads to regard the act of going to church and hearing sermons as a mere duty na lng, and not as an act of seeking the truth, aspiring for enlightenment and generally seeking for the higher good) yung followers.

True, true, nobody can stay in power for far too long, except the Church since She is indefectible. Have you forgotten the Lord Jesus Christ's promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church? Many have predicted that the Church will fall given X number of years. But I'm sorry to disappoint you, She's still around.

And bakit ba kailangan merong maring denominations sa religion?

That's because some people left the Catholic Church, which is the one true Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. That is not triumphalism of any kind, that is not boasting of any sort. It's merely a testimony to the fact that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth".

[Von!-x]

@richard, you don't have to argue doctrinal issues that separates the Roman Catholics, INC, Mormons and Protestants. Â*

You may read the booklet available at OMF which compares evangelicals and catholic doctrines. Â*You may also read the books by Fr. Pezzota and some of those published by chick publications.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

@richard, you don't have to argue doctrinal issues that separates the Roman Catholics, INC, Mormons and Protestants. � You may read the booklet available at OMF which compares evangelicals and catholic doctrines. �You may also read the books by Fr. Pezzota and some of those published by chick publications.

Jack Chick tracts? Yeah, they were a good read...if you need a good laugh! LOL! Nearly killed me when my stomach hurt a lot from laughing.

But Jack Chick's friend, Alberto Rivera, who claimed to be a Jesuit priest and undercover operative of the Jesuit order (supposedly sent to infiltrate and destroy Protestant churches and institutions) and who provided the former with those most sensationalistic, most anti-Catholic claims (which allowed Chick’s conspiracy theories to grow increasingly complex and bizarre) had been exposed as a fraud. Who initiated the work to expose him? Surprise, surprise: investigations of prominent Protestant publications, including Christianity Today, Cornerstone, and even Forward�a publication of Walter Martin’s Christian Research Institute�did! Don't believe me? Read the following articles:
1. "Booksellers’ Group May Expel Chick," Christianity Today, October 23, 1981, 62.
2. Gary Metz, "Jack Chick’s Anti-Catholic Alberto Comic Book Is Exposed as a Fraud," Christianity Today, March 13, 1981.
3. Gary Metz, "Alberto Rivera’s False Anti-Catholic Story," Cornerstone (www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228).
4. Brian Onken, "Alberto: The Truth about His Story," Forward, February 25, 1983.

Enjoy the laugh, richard79!

[Von!-x]

I read the jack chick's comics and the article from Christianity today. The attack was mostly on the personal qualifications of Dr. Rivera. Interesting but still a good read though. Even jack chick was just a cartoonist zealous of his faith. Some of the comics are still available at OMF. I lost my personal copies. However, these lits are not to replace the bible.


The fact that many individuals left the Catholic Church does not mean that they are excluded from the universal church. What about the Greek Catholics? Lutherans? Luther was supposed to be a reformer, not a protestant. Are his claims right or wrong? If they can't attack his claims, then they attacked the person.

Religion is man-made, man reaching out to his god. Christianity is not. It is God who reached out to man.

[silent-kill]

first you need to define what is blind faith. who decides what is right, and what is wrong?. who are crazy, and who are not?. Its a matter of relativity. we define things on how we personally see it or how other defined it to us, how can we say if a religion is blind? when we did not put our selves on an equal footing of the other?.. we tend to have bias on things we want to believe because of some factors like fear, pressure, belonginess, assurance, and acceptance from other people.

That is why we are unique because we can "choose" everyone claims to be the truth. but the thing is they are just part of the truth but not truth it self. so, why do we tend to tell others that they are wrong, or their faith is blind?..

I personally believe in a God, a God that is not defined in a book because God is infinite, a God who create things, and destroy things. for some reasons he only knew. a supreme creator and a supreme destroyer.

I used to be a protestant, and I always judge and question on why catholics have idols, images on their church?. when it is against christian faith. and then I use to hate religion it self and all its commandments when they cant follow it them selves. but then I realize who am I? to tell them they are wrong and their faith is blind, what authority do I have, or my religion have? am I perfect? am I god it/him self?,. I return the question to you.

[dacs]

@richard - I guess you understand that religion and good works cannot save a person from eternal damnation. As the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Your favorite verse? Mine too. It affirm our Catholic doctrine that you need faith in order to be saved. Yet, I also believe in 1 Corinthians 13:13 - 'faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love'. Love, not faith, is the greatest. The Latin word being used here is caritas which means sacrificial love or charity. Charity is the good works done by Christians. This is the greatest. The Bible separates faith, hope, and love as three separate theological virtues. Ever heard of James 2:14-26? Still, faith was separated from love/charity. Both Paul and James separates faith from love/charity - as Catholics do. Yet, Catholics do not make faith and love as mutually exclusive. Faith without love is dead. Charity without faith is not even charity but just philanthropy.

Read Matthew 7:21-23. People may drive out demons in the name of Jesus Christ. They may prophesy in His name and do mighty deeds in His name. No one can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Spirit. That presupposes faith in Christ. You could drive out demons, prophesy and do mighty deeds in His name; yet, Christ will deny you because you are an evildoer. This is supported by 1 Corinthians 13:2-3.

If this so, why do we have Romans 3:28? Take note that these are works of the law - that is, the Mosaic law of the Jews. What Catholics are doing are not works of the Mosaic law but of Christian love. Martin Luther even rendered this verse in his translation of the Bible with the word alone after the word faith just to advance his sola fide doctrine.

If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Good works in an offshot the saving faith. Eph 2:10 says "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

- ditto -

A person's passion for religion is not even a guarantee for eternal life. Remember the pharisees.

Read Matthew 23:1-3. Are you going to obey the scribes now because Jesus tells you to do so? It is His utterance. Jesus Christ requires our obedience to lawful authority of our religion. Are you going to deny that?

Enjoying the comfort zone, is what most Christians are doing today. Why rock the boat? Why bother evangelize, when I am enjoying the preaching and the music. Why talk of eternal damnation when I feel like in heaven listening to Christian music. Why ask for daily bread when I have plenty for tomorrow? Why bother, when I am going to heaven and they're not?

While I am typing this, I too asked myself if I'm enjoying my comfort zone too.

How can you call yourself a Christian when the last words of Christ while He is still on earth is to commission us all to make disciples of all nation? I rather point richard79 to a Christianity that is not after a personal comfort zone but truly for the salvation of souls.