🕯️ Traditions tama ba si senator pacquiao?

[jayendecastro]

I already told you how I interpret it. Again, hindi ako expert. You are insisting that since ganyan yung pagka-interpret mo, contradicting na siya sa teachings. Sigurado ka bang tama yung interpretation mo? Ako hindi ako sigurado din pero I do what I think would not go against my faith. You are trying to establish that it should only be interpreted literally and that it should apply at all times. Well, I don't and I won't. Kung hindi mo kayang tanggapin ang interpretation na iyan, wala na akong magagawa diyan. Hindi ko naman aim i-convince ka eh. Basta with that interpretation, it didn't go against my faith and in my legal duties as a citizen of a country.

'db dapat alam ni god un before he allowed him/her to rule? May basbas at will ni god daw ung authorities pero pag nagkamali kasi tao lang?? Or nagkamali si god ng pagpili? ' May concept po ng free will. Even if God chose that person, he has free will to do what he wants. Hindi si God nagkamali ng pagpili, yung tao yung mali. Bakit, voters ba ang may sala kung ang isang elect leader na mabait sa simula ay naging masama? And again, kung hindi mo kayang tanggapin na some are elected as a test by God, wala na rin akong magagawa diyan. Basta ako, I am not as brain dead as to support a leader kahit na obvious nang mali ginagawa niya, legally and/or morally, kahit si God pa mismo nag-appoint niyan.

'so basically wat ur saying is that the bible as god's word is outdated and unclear or not specific... ' Nope. Wala akong sinabing ganyan. Yung tinutukoy ko sa Old Testament is yung Pentateuch, which is yung batas nila Moses dati. Yung some sinusunod pa rin hanggang ngayon and yung some hindi dahil sa pagdating ni Jesus.

I am not aiming to convince you, I just can't accept na applicable at all times ang Romans 13, sorry I won't. Sadyang hindi lang talaga ganyan ang pagkaturo ng catechism sa amin. If you want to know about catechism, then search mo lang catechism of the catholic church and may mahabang libro niyan. Wala naman masama sa isang Catholic to go against unjust authorities, lalo na against authorities who are legally and morally wrong. Kung hindi mo kayang makita or tanggapin iyan, then again, wala na ako magagawa niyan except to respect what you believe. See you!

Yan nga sinasabi ko.. sa interpretation kayo lage nagkakagulo...

I just mentioned kung ano ung actual na nasa book...

Lets say si Digong nga being the elected president. So by default his leadership was allowed by god. Di ko na ulitin ung verses sa romans..
So initially...and thinking sa una is god's will yan na manalo sya. And now na pag may nagawa sya na di sangayon sa gusto or paniniwala naten eh he's just exercising his free will and turned out to be a not so good leader. So invalid na ung romans?? So jump to other bible verses para consistent?

And that whole free will na yan..gift ni god yan db?? Yet lage nasisisi yan pag nagcocomplicate yan sa divine plans or will ni god.. an all knowing god nad yet his plan can be messed up by free will na bigay din nea?? And that all loving god can punish you for exercising that free will which he had given??

 

[PHC-Metanoia]

Yan nga sinasabi ko.. sa interpretation kayo lage nagkakagulo...

I just mentioned kung ano ung actual na nasa book...

Lets say si Digong nga being the elected president. So by default his leadership was allowed by god. Di ko na ulitin ung verses sa romans..
So initially...and thinking sa una is god's will yan na manalo sya. And now na pag may nagawa sya na di sangayon sa gusto or paniniwala naten eh he's just exercising his free will and turned out to be a not so good leader. So invalid na ung romans?? So jump to other bible verses para consistent?

And that whole free will na yan..gift ni god yan db?? Yet lage nasisisi yan pag nagcocomplicate yan sa divine plans or will ni god.. an all knowing god nad yet his plan can be messed up by free will na bigay din nea?? And that all loving god can punish you for exercising that free will which he had given??

Kung may nagawa mang pagkakamali si President Duterte, hindi na kailangan ng bible verses para sabihing mali iyan. Bakit magkakagulo sa interpretation when lahat naman ng sinearch kong interpretation by Catholic bible scholars sa Romans 13 ay parehas lang? Na tinutukoy lang nito ang just government, not an oppressive government? Kung iba man interpretation ng ibang relihiyon gaya ni Pacquiao, wala akong responsibility para idefend yun...Tanungin mo sila bakit ganun, hindi ako or kaming Katoliko..

Free will is binigay ni God dahil may tiwala siya na gagawin ng tao yung tama. Kung magkamali man yung tao, si God ba may kasalanan, when siya yung nagtiwala? Same lang iyan sa relationship: kung binigyan mo ng freedom yung partner mo dahil may tiwala ka sa kanya na hindi ka lolokohin pero niloko ka niya, ikaw ba may kasalanan?

And anong sinasabi mong messed up plans? I don't claim to know the plans of God pero you claim na mas alam mo pala plano ni God kaysa sa akin kasi nasabi mo namess up yung plan niya? May difference ang will and plan. 'And that all loving god can punish you for exercising that free will which he had given??' Again, free will is given both as a test and as a gift. Kung gamitin mo iyan sa kasamaan, bakit ineexpect mo not to be punished? It's the same sa isang country. May free will tayo so long as we don't violate any laws. May punishment kung yung pag-exercise mo ng free will ay nakakasakit o nanlalamang na sa iba...Hindi naman siguro mahirap intindihin iyan, kahit hindi sa religious perspective.

 

[Cute-Piggy]

Yan nga sinasabi ko.. sa interpretation kayo lage nagkakagulo...

I just mentioned kung ano ung actual na nasa book...

Lets say si Digong nga being the elected president. So by default his leadership was allowed by god. Di ko na ulitin ung verses sa romans..
So initially...and thinking sa una is god's will yan na manalo sya. And now na pag may nagawa sya na di sangayon sa gusto or paniniwala naten eh he's just exercising his free will and turned out to be a not so good leader. So invalid na ung romans?? So jump to other bible verses para consistent?

And that whole free will na yan..gift ni god yan db?? Yet lage nasisisi yan pag nagcocomplicate yan sa divine plans or will ni god.. an all knowing god nad yet his plan can be messed up by free will na bigay din nea?? And that all loving god can punish you for exercising that free will which he had given??

sa tingin ko po tama interpretation niya dahil dun nga naguluhan ako dun sa subject na yun pero nung sinabi niya yun naliwanagan ako dahil yun din iniisip ko at iniisip ko rin iniisip mo bago ko pa ginawa tong thread kaya naguluhan ako

kung hindi mo po binasa lahat yung content ng thread basahin mo po ulit dahil yung sinabi ni pacman ay yung romans 13 at kung ibabase sa mga events ng pilipinas hinirang ba talaga si prrd ni God sa pwesto ngayong ang may hawak ng mundo ay si satanas 2cor4 kung saan ang mga hindi naniniwala ay kanyang binulag kung titignan mo ano pinagsasabi ni prrd masasabi mong nababaliw na siya

sinabi niya nung una hindi siya naniniwala sa Diyos o sa bible pero sinabi din niya na naniniwala siya na may Diyos pero hindi ang religion ni kwinesyon nga niya yung mga bible verses sa bible kahit i search mo yung sinabi ko na sinabi ni prrd sa internet makikita mo yun sa mga news

tapos kailan lang sinabi ni prrd na si quiboloy ay matagal na niyang kaibigan after nun yung kay apollo investment schemes which is not related to this eh kilala mo naman si quiboloy diba kung binasa mo ang bible masasabi mong delusional siya at isa siyang false prophet and false christ

tapos sinabi ni prrd na relihiyoso siya at nag babasa siya ng bible sa tv channel ni quiboloy at may nilatag pa nga siyang verse na nagpapatunay na sinusunod niya yun ecclesiastes 3

Ecclesiastes 3
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;note

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;note

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; note

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?

10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

11 He hath made every thingbeautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. note

16 And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, thatwickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, thatiniquity was there.

17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. note

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? note note

22 Wherefore I perceive thatthere is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

maiintindihan mo daw siya pag binasa mo yan

ang tanong paano siya nakakasigurado na totoo yan ngayong hindi siya naniniwala sa genesis 2 and 3 paano mo nasasabing tama ka kung may kinuha ka lang na isang page dun sa bible at denied lahat ng iba pang page

therefore conclusion ko hindi siya talaga nilagay ni God jan

 

[jayendecastro]

Cute-Piggy , PHC-Noob_Saibot

Hahahaba. Hehehe...

Etu pinaka point ko para short...

A believer quoted the bible on why we shud submit to our leader

Another believer quoted the same book to say the opposite

So who wins sa 2?? Sino ang mali?? Sino ang tama? They cant be both wrong or both right.

 

[Cute-Piggy]

Cute-Piggy , PHC-Noob_Saibot

Hahahaba. Hehehe...

Etu pinaka point ko para short...

A believer quoted the bible on why we shud submit to our leader

Another believer quoted the same book to say the opposite

So who wins sa 2?? Sino ang mali?? Sino ang tama? They cant be both wrong or both right.

jan po papasok ang sariling paniniwala depende po sa pagkakaintindi mo yun po ang tama kaya po hindi natatapos ang gulo kapag ang mga taong iba iba ang paniniwala ay nag uusap

hindi rin po pwede rumispeto dahil dito

 

[PHC-Metanoia]

Cute-Piggy , PHC-Noob_Saibot

Hahahaba. Hehehe...

Etu pinaka point ko para short...

A believer quoted the bible on why we shud submit to our leader

Another believer quoted the same book to say the opposite

So who wins sa 2?? Sino ang mali?? Sino ang tama? They cant be both wrong or both right.

Hindi ko masasabing tama yung interpretation ko, hindi ko rin masasabing mali yung interpretation nung isa. I am not as knowledgeable as a bible scholar to say who's right. Pero yung masasabi ko lang, I will stick to my interpretation so long as wala akong taong sinasaktan at wala akong batas na nilalabag. I will stick to my interpretation as long as payapa conscience ko at nakakatulog akong mahimbing araw-araw dahil wala akong ginawang kasalanan. I will stick to my interpretation dahil I know and trust that Paul would not be so thoughtless or unkind as to suggest following all types of government, even unjust or oppressive ones...Yun lang.

 

[jayendecastro]

jan po papasok ang sariling paniniwala depende po sa pagkakaintindi mo yun po ang tama kaya po hindi natatapos ang gulo kapag ang mga taong iba iba ang paniniwala ay nag uusap

hindi rin po pwede rumispeto dahil dito

Im not saying nga na magkaiba ng paniniwala eh... Both are believers, both are quoting the bible...

So basically the supposed word of god is open for interpretations?? Even conflicting ones...

Hindi ko masasabing tama yung interpretation ko, hindi ko rin masasabing mali yung interpretation nung isa. I am not as knowledgeable as a bible scholar to say who's right. Pero yung masasabi ko lang, I will stick to my interpretation so long as wala akong taong sinasaktan at wala akong batas na nilalabag. I will stick to my interpretation as long as payapa conscience ko at nakakatulog akong mahimbing araw-araw dahil wala akong ginawang kasalanan. I will stick to my interpretation dahil I know and trust that Paul would not be so thoughtless or unkind as to suggest following all types of government, even unjust or oppressive ones...Yun lang.

U actually dont need to be a bible scholar to know wat the bible means... U do believe its the word of god ryt?? God's instructions to mankind. How will compensate for two conflicting ideas coming from god?

Maybe its not god's word after all.

And its not about what the bible verses is implying , its about what the book actually says.

I think nmn if u consider something as strong as tne word of god eh very specific and no loopholes yan dapat. Kung ung binigay na instructions eh can be interpreted in many conflicting ways, then mali na ng nagbigay ng instruction yun. Anw...last na yan...hehehe...

 

[Baka-Joker-Ito]

Ung mag babasa jan May popcorn pa ako dito ang dami kong nalalaman dito

 

[Deleted member 1523148]

Sa mga secular democracies ng Western Europe, baliw o bo bo ang turing sa mga taong ginagamit ang religion sa political arguments.

Fiction ang religion. Kung naniniwala ka jan, sarilinin mo na lang! Di mo pwedeng iimpose ang fictional beliefs mo sa ibang tao lalo na sa mga government policies.

Sa Middle East, kamatayan ang parusa pagdi mo ginalang ang paniniwala ng mga tao.

Mas madami pang fictional character ang mga Scientific Theory kesa sa bible.

 

[Deleted member 1523148]

Naging senador lang si Pacquiao dahil sikat siya. Ignorante sya wala syang alam sa batas. Puro absent pa sa senado at kongreso dati. Hindi pa nagbabayad ng tax. Hindi yan dapat naging senador. Walang yang alam kundi banggitin ang bibliya sa mga political arguments. Nakakahiya siya. Ibinabandera niya ang kamangmangan niya.

If I'm not mistaken.. Pacquiao received an "award" for having the least absences and Kung di sya magbabayad ng tax ay for sure hahabulin sya ng media.

Andameng iyaking atheist dito.

 

[fabbriche]

Sa Middle East, kamatayan ang parusa pagdi mo ginalang ang paniniwala ng mga tao.

Mas madami pang fictional character ang mga Scientific Theory kesa sa bible.

Walang human rights sa Middle East. Pugad ang mga bansang un ng mga terorista. Hanggang ngaun pumapatay sila para lang sa mga fictional beliefs nila na wala nang puwang sa 21st century.

 

[fabbriche]

If I'm not mistaken.. Pacquiao received an "award" for having the least absences and Kung di sya magbabayad ng tax ay for sure hahabulin sya ng media.

Andameng iyaking atheist dito.

Anong "least absences" pinagsasabi mo jan. Tatlong beses lang yan umattend sa kongreso at siya rin pinakamaraming liban sa senado. Yan ang pinaka walang kwentang pulitiko. Puro absent na, wala pang laman ang utak. Puro bibliya lagi ang bukambibig.

 

[Deleted member 1523148]

Anong "least absences" pinagsasabi mo jan. Tatlong beses lang yan umattend sa kongreso at siya rin pinakamaraming liban sa senado. Yan ang pinaka walang kwentang pulitiko. Puro absent na, wala pang laman ang utak. Puro bibliya lagi ang bukambibig.

Huh? San mo nmn nabasa yan?
Hahaha.

 

[Deleted member 1523148]

Walang human rights sa Middle East. Pugad ang mga bansang un ng mga terorista. Hanggang ngaun pumapatay sila para lang sa mga fictional beliefs nila na wala nang puwang sa 21st century.

At ang Pilipinas walang terorista?
Ikaw hindi kaba terorista?
Ahhhh. Militant Atheist kalang.
Ganyang-ganyan din sila magsalita.... Gaya mo.