The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[yhokz101]

---

pero ang tubag sad sa doctor kay iyang gisalig tanan ni MAMA MARY b4 sa procedure coz he believes sa power healing ni MAMA MARY

- - - Updated - - -

ang point sad diha nganu sa katoliko man nga doctor iyang gipili infact dako kaayo ang rebolto ni MAMA MARY sa iyang clinic

sayup man na ang doctor ana... salig cya sa healing power ni Jesus Christ. In catholic beliefs, Mama mary only intercedes petition and prayers.

Aw sa laktud na pagka sulti brad ang pastor salig sa abilidad sa doctor, out na ang religion sa ilang duha. Ampo ang doctor .. lain sad ampo ang pastor. hehehe

[jielof]

mao lage brad ang sayop mangud sa pastor nganu cg cya panaut sa katoliko nga unta kita mismo tao wala kabaw asa ta padung inig kamatay nato. mo ana bah ang ginoo nga ikaw dili ka pwede kay katoliko ka o baptist o born again etc...

[noy]

next question, why is it mostly members of the church are not being knowledgeable with there dogma? moingon lang sila kung unsay namat-an pakamatayan without knowing unsa ilang stand. nisantop sa akong huna2x nga ang dakong sayop sa simbahan ngano ingon ani kay wala gitudlo sa kadaghanan. mao dili firm ang Foundation sa ilang faith mao daghan nagpraktis sa ilang church nga sayop sa ilang dogma. like for example about sa Council of Trent issue about idolatry pero gamay ra kaayo nakahibalo about ani. mao ang mga tao they keep practicing with the wrong concept of their dogma. Sultihi ko kung nasayop ba ko sa akong giistorya o naa ba ko gamay nga truth..

actually bai, the church teaches her members pero ang pagtuhop ug pag review sa mga pagtulon-an naa na sa hingtungdan.. dako pud ug factor how parents would raise their kids, if Catholic parents would teach their kids the catechism or let their kids learn their catechism or not..kung sa klase pa bro, way mabuhat ang teacher if mamayabas jud ang estudyante..

now, regarding issues about idolatry bai, i need you to elaborate further para mas klaro.. which practices in particular? what practices do you think the church members are doing that are actually against the church's dogma but the church allowed it anyhow.. thanks

[noy]

what you failed to mention is that the views of most people who don't believe - the likes of feynman and dawkins anyway - is that in spite of being not able to prove anything about the non-existence of a god, the evidences suggests that there is no reason to believe in a god, all the more is that this belief does not conform to any rational outlook, at least the scientific one.. that's what it's all about,. one cannot simply conflate the empirical assertion of disbelief with the subjective-philosophical one and think that somehow they are comparable, 'coz really they are not..

why can't we compare both perspectives when the only thing that differentiates them is the conclusion?
both sides point at the nature of creation as proof of their claim...

you claim that there's no design hence no reason to believe in an intelligent creator by looking at the scientific datas or facts made available for you while we claim otherwise by using exactly the same data..

the idea that God is the uncaused cause is of course an assertion,subjective and philosophical. i won't deny that.. but what makes you think your idea about God's inexistence isn't under the same category?

anyways, any question about catholic teachings and doctrines? kapuy ning creation2x istoryahan way kahumanan..

- - - Updated - - -

Inyung Pope gi tirahan sa pikas thread

haha! what's new sio?..haters gonna hate...

[pakinimo]

One difference is that a negation of an unproven claim isnt a claim... Hehehehe

[noy]

Nganu man tuod ang Roman Catholic church mo gamit man jd ug rebolto? Nganu naa man hulagway sa mga pictures ni Jesus sa mga images, sure na mao jd na ang Iya nawng? Nganu mag cge man mo gamit ug statues o rebolto kung mag ampo pwede raman direct ra mag ampo db?

yes bai, pwede ra man pud ug way representation..pero ok ra pud ug naa..hehehe

no one really knows how exactly Jesus looked like..but the image we have of him is based on some biblical sources and mostly historical sources..they are depictions bai, not actual portrait so dili kinahanglan nga siento porciento exacto..hehehe

for example, makasugat ka ug cross-shaped nga poste and in that instant you are reminded about what Christ has done for you..
so you become repentant to the extent of kneeling in front of that cross-shaped post..
we both know nga dili jud to mao ang exact cross ni Jesus..most of all poste pa jud to sa kuryente..hehehe
but as it represent the cross of our savior, duna siyay spiritual effect..

mao nay rason nga dunay statues/images..magamit nato sila sa paghinumbum sa gibuhat sa Ginoo..sa mga karaang christiano nga tua na sa Ginoo nag-una nato...unsa ilang gibuhat..and from there..it serves like a good kick-start to revive our souls..to start comtemplating...but if you're alright without any visual aids in contemplation then ayos ra pud..

but honestly, murag mas nice basahon ang libro kung dunay hulagway makita.. i hope you see my point...

anyways, please click the link below for further explanation about statues in the catholic church.
Do Catholics Worship Statues? | Catholic Answers

- - - Updated - - -

One difference is that a negation of an unproven claim isnt a claim... Hehehehe

still is bai, a counter claim...i claim there's God.. you claim otherwise..hehe
why counter claim? 'cause you haven't disproven my initial claim yet.

[rorounicosine]

hmmm nindot ni nga topic da...base raman na sa imu nadunggan pd tingali imung explanation bai.. ky sa bible mn ta ga basi sa atong pag too sa ginoo, kahibaw baka bai nga naa mismo sa bible nag ingun ang ginoo nga ayaw mo ug buhat ug imahin naku or bisan kinsa nga mga imahin sa langit? mao ni ang verse bro... " Exodus Chapter 20

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Leviticus 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.

[noy]

hmmm nindot ni nga topic da...base raman na sa imu nadunggan pd tingali imung explanation bai.. ky sa bible mn ta ga basi sa atong pag too sa ginoo, kahibaw baka bai nga naa mismo sa bible nag ingun ang ginoo nga ayaw mo ug buhat ug imahin naku or bisan kinsa nga mga imahin sa langit? mao ni ang verse bro... " Exodus Chapter 20

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Leviticus 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.

images are okay bai as long as you do not worship these images.

God even commanded moses to make images of angels(cherubs) around the ark of the covenant where "the presence of God dwells". see Ex. 25:18–20
God also commanded moses to create a graven image of a bronze snake and let the afflicted israelites LOOK at the image so they will be HEALED...see Num. 21:8–9
meaning God uses images for religious and ritual purposes..

mabasa nato diha sa exodus before sa thou shall not make graven images...ang commandment kay "thou shall not have other gods before me"..in context would mean God does not want us to woship other gods especially in the form of graven images..example kadtong golden calf, anito2x.. and the likes but it doesn't mean God absolutely forbade the use of images.

but because of the fact that God did actually commanded to make images, it points out to the fact that God is okay with images as long as the image shows the glory of God and we do not worship that image..
kay kung gibawal pa TANANG images..then the Lord wouldn't have commanded moses to make such images..

if we go a little Further, King Solomon made the temple full of graven images of cherubs, palm trees, flowers and all sorts of other stuff as an offering to the Lord see 1 Kgs. 6:23, 27, 29, 31, 32..and the Lord was even pleased with what He did at the completion of the construction..1 Kgs. 9:3

so No bro, dili ni chismis akong gibasehan..but naa sa bible pud.

plaihug ko ug click ani nga link bai for further explanation. salamat
Do Catholics Worship Statues? | Catholic Answers

[pakinimo]

kanang counter claim noy mao ranang 'negative', imo lang gi lahi ag word. hehehhehe

balik ta sa science. kung naay discovery, e prove mana sya, mu agi og peer review ang theory etc, nia kung ma prove ma publish and mahimo ug basehan sa tanan study... karon, nag claim ka nia wa nimo naprove. Igo raman ka ma reject ana without any long discussion.. d man ka pwede moingon nga "aw e prove ninyo nga dli tnuod akong claim"... because in the first place, if tnuod giud na, wouldn't it be easier to prove than to disprove?

Kay kung gamitun nato na imong concept, pwede ra diay ko mag buhat2x ug idea nga d ma disprove, nia mo conclude daun ko nga truth ako idea since wa man na disprove, bsag wa sad nako na prove..

Just because the proposition is not proven false does not mean it is true. - from a logical fallacy definition..

Now, wala namo na disprove imong claim. Which you think is, "god does not exist'. but the truth is atheists don't care whether or not ma disprove nila nga 'god does not exist' because:

1. It cannot be disproven
2. Not being able to disprove does not help you prove your claim, in fact it doesnt change anything

Kung muingon kog kita kog unicorn-like animal, unsaon man nmo pag disprove noy? and this unicorn is moving very fast, and has the ability of a chameleon to camouflage and is amphibian.. Since this is a physical being assumed, the only way to disprove that there isn't a unicorn on earth is to explore every corner all at once, which is impossible.

[slabs18]

Kay kung gamitun nato na imong concept, pwede ra diay ko mag buhat2x ug idea nga d ma disprove, nia mo conclude daun ko nga truth ako idea since wa man na disprove, bsag wa sad nako na prove..

sakto ka...kung gamiton nako imong reasoning, pwede ra di ie ka magbuhat buhat nga na disprove? karon asa man ang imong proof?

sige kag gamit anang unicorn? hatagan tikag lain example: kato gipakaon ang 5000 ka tawo unsaon man ato pag prove? gusto nimo ipa prove?

ang proof ana is only the statement of the people who was once in there, pero saon man nimo pagpangutana ato nila nga hagbay raman to silang nangamatay? syempre adto kas ilang gipangsuwat, mao na unta ang bible, pero unsaon man pag prove using biblical's event nga dili man nimo dawaton

Now, wala namo na disprove imong claim. Which you think is, "god does not exist'. but the truth is atheists don't care whether or not ma disprove nila nga 'god does not exist' because:

from your own POV unsa pamay pulos nga magtagawtaw kas imong pagtuo kung ang athiest "but the truth is atheists don't care whether or not ma disprove nila nga 'god does not exist"