Manganak ta ug Daghan --- Archbishop Palma :)

[trollolol]

---

If only there was a way for the state to regulate responsible parenting then it would be okay. I see lots of old timers from 2 generations ago who are now living it up thanks to bringing up responsible children.

And then I see some unproductive children from small families contributing to society's problems (Joavan for one).

Anyway, there is a school of thought in economics saying that there is a direct correlation between economic growth and population growth. I for one believe this to be true.

[chrisvil]

I'm already "sangyawing" it aren't I? I'm not the only one practicing the natural method. Several couples are. Honestly, I never thought it was possible until me and my husband prayed for it. If you ask if everyone can do it, then I say they can if they seek help. No one is forcing those married couples to practice it. The Church never forced anyone's freewill in the most authentic sense of teaching. Emotional, financial readiness or what not can be simply answered by their marital vows. If you're familiar with these vows, then you'll realize those aren't mere words or empty promises. Enlightened simply means they who faithfully practice genuine freedom which isn't contrary to the natural law.
I don't need proof to make you believe how tragic the effects of SIN are. Â*Fact one: Not all diseases have cures. Fact two: Not all human symptoms can be rationally explained by doctors. But it all boils down to man's hardness of heart. We all suffer. We all will suffer. And as I look into my own heart I can honestly say that God has not inflicted on me the just punishment I deserve for all the sins that I have committed. Â*Shouldn't you at least be examining your own too instead of the mere "lol" and "blah" digital superman?Â*

Yeah right! Naa uban dri pataka lang ug yaw-yaw murag correct. Mas maayo pa'y mang limpyo ta atong kaugalinong puder kaysa mamantay sa silingan.

What makes the two different? Saints and a Reformist? Ang santos mag bantay sa iyang kaugalingon na dili siya masayop o dili siya maka sala sa isig usa ka tawo, while ang repormista mag bantay sa uban na sayop, kon naa lay makita na gagmay sayop dayon ug kyaw-kyaw then libakon dayon wala sad tan-awa ang iyang kaugalingon sayop. Sagad sa mga nag post dinhi as I have observed kay puro mga reformist dili mga santoson.

Sa pagka tinood lang kaning bag-ong nipasar na balaod kabahin sa RH kay gihimo lang ang mga babaye ug object of obsession ug sexual satisfaction or in short lingaw-lingawan lang sa mga lalaki. Kon kamo ang babaye mosugot ba mo ingon ana on mo sa inyong bana o lalaki? Kon dili magtagbaw ang babayi sa lalaki kay pwede siya mangita ug lain lalaki na makatagbaw sa iyang biga. Mao na akong nasabtan sa RH ug dili lang kana. Naa maayo sa RH ug naa sad dili maayo na need to be repealed.

So daghan kaayo dri ang hypocrite reformist. Mao na sa una pa naka post ko diri na ngano daghan man diri sa istorya.net na mga "COOL". Kamo nalang hubad sa binisaya.

[wenlove24]

Haha. Katawaa nako ani nga post oi. Maau jud kaau ka mu twist2x dah! hahahah...

I see you've been very quick to defend clergy and say that it happens to the best of us.

Giving in to natural urges happens to the best of us. It happens to the tired pedicab driver who goes home drunk and wants to make it with his wife.

Sh*t happens to the best of us. It happens to the woman who uses her body to earn money.

Bad decisions happen to the best of us. It happens to the teenager who has *** with his/her partner.

If people want to be wiser and use contraceptives when they give in to their normal urges, you say it's abomination.
But when clergy steps out of line, you say it happens to the best of us.

Wow. No double standards there.

You can laugh all the way to TimbukTu but you have to admit it's erroneous of you to think that I "only" defended the clergy. You sure they're the only ones I'm trying to defend? Clearly this is all just mockery to you. Again, is it just me or is a circle pointless? Hehehe...

Also, self-control can mean desires for other things like food, clothing, property, power, etc.

[redemption32]

Yeah right! Naa uban dri pataka lang ug yaw-yaw murag correct. Mas maayo pa'y mang limpyo ta atong kaugalinong puder kaysa mamantay sa silingan.

What makes the two different? Saints and a Reformist? Ang santos mag bantay sa iyang kaugalingon na dili siya masayop o dili siya maka sala sa isig usa ka tawo, while ang repormista mag bantay sa uban na sayop, kon naa lay makita na gagmay sayop dayon ug kyaw-kyaw then libakon dayon wala sad tan-awa ang iyang kaugalingon sayop. Sagad sa mga nag post dinhi as I have observed kay puro mga reformist dili mga santoson.

Sa pagka tinood lang kaning bag-ong nipasar na balaod kabahin sa RH kay gihimo lang ang mga babaye ug object of obsession ug sexual satisfaction or in short lingaw-lingawan lang sa mga lalaki. Kon kamo ang babaye mosugot ba mo ingon ana on mo sa inyong bana o lalaki? Kon dili magtagbaw ang babayi sa lalaki kay pwede siya mangita ug lain lalaki na makatagbaw sa iyang biga. Mao na akong nasabtan sa RH ug dili lang kana. Naa maayo sa RH ug naa sad dili maayo na need to be repealed.

So daghan kaayo dri ang hypocrite reformist. Mao na sa una pa naka post ko diri na ngano daghan man diri sa istorya.net na mga "COOL". Kamo nalang hubad sa binisaya.

Wow, so uhmmm.. Are you a saint or something?? haha..

"Kon dili magtagbaw ang babayi sa lalaki kay pwede siya mangita ug lain lalaki na makatagbaw sa iyang biga. Mao na akong nasabtan sa RH ug dili lang kana."

Please state where in the bill can you get that conclusion? Bisan dili na Reproductive Health imung pasabot ha? Bisan Red Horse nah.

"So daghan kaayo dri ang hypocrite reformist."

"while ang repormista mag bantay sa uban na sayop, kon naa lay makita na gagmay sayop dayon ug kyaw-kyaw then libakon dayon wala sad tan-awa ang iyang kaugalingon sayop."

Daghan mi diri bai? Hehe. Well, you can label us all you want. but since,



"Yeah right! Naa uban dri pataka lang ug yaw-yaw murag correct"

Nakakita ka'g gamayng sayop,kyaw kyaw man dayon ka nga wa nimu tan-awa imung kaugalingon nga sayop..

Aw, welcome to the group, Braaaad!!

[cobraKing]

lets get ready to rumble.....


asa na akong pop corn ug red horse...

[redemption32]

You can laugh all the way to TimbukTu but you have to admit it's erroneous of you to think that I "only" defended the clergy. You sure they're the only ones I'm trying to defend? Clearly this is all just mockery to you. Again, is it just me or is a circle pointless? Hehehe...

You need to redefine mockery. Preaching that couples should have more children if they want to when all reason tells them that they shouldn't because they can't afford to do so is mockery for me. We may have different definitions of the word.

[redemption32]

lets get ready to rumble.....


asa na akong pop corn ug red horse...

Pop Corns from my place.

Red horse @ Chrisvil's...

[wenlove24]

abortion is abomination, contraception is not..

Both are abominations because they feed the desires of the flesh, not the spirit..

[tingkagol]

Is safe *** really safe? Who are we kidding?

Tell that to the people suffering from STDs. Better yet, tell that to the AIDS-stricken population in Africa.

Suffering is another thing. We could start a whole new topic with that alone.

You asked if safe s*x is really safe. The straight answer is yes. S*x can be regarded as "safe" or "unsafe" depending on the medical condition of the parties involved and the type of contraceptives used. No new topic required.

On the other hand, how can safe s*x be unsafe? It's an oxym0ron.

My opinion stands. Contraception is an abomination.

Your opinion stands indeed. Unfortunately, it being an "abomination" has no basis other than supposedly halting a near "full" marriage almost coming in full circle shy of consummating and producing children (which is another opinion of yours). In the end, those are opinions that carry little wind.

Contraception is not an abomination because it prevents unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs with very minimal failure rate.

[wenlove24]

You need to redefine mockery. Preaching that couples should have more children if they want to when all reason tells them that they shouldn't because they can't afford to do so is mockery for me. We may have different definitions of the word.

Preaching is not forcing. Only encouraging. I'm still pointing at the circle. I think you see it. And by the way, pala-away lagi ka no? Hehee.. Di man tantong obvious. *<|:-}