The Church is responsible for over population in the Phils.

[dacs]

---

folks i used to be like him- i poked holes and find mistakes but the truth is, i did not know anything. it changed until i searched and seek to prove my disbeliefs. what i found is more faith and trust in God. im going to stop for now. i cant pound my opinion and what is right to benigno, only him can find/change that. ill be reading ur responses. naa bai apologetics group sa cebu?
PEACE

Naa man. Mary's Catholic Apologists (MCA) is one of those. They meet once a week at the Cebu Catholic Television Network (CCTN). Wala na ko kahibalo kung unsang adlawa na. Bobit Avila (moderator of Straight from the Sky and columnist of The Freeman) is a member. Naa pud ang Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) nga mag-meet every Monday 7:00 PM sa Mt. Carmel Church sa USJ-R (Carbon). Bro. Socrates Fernandez (mayor of Talisay City) is a member of both.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Naa man. Mary's Catholic Apologists (MCA) is one of those. They meet once a week at the Cebu Catholic Television Network (CCTN). Wala na ko kahibalo kung unsang adlawa na. Bobit Avila (moderator of Straight from the Sky and columnist of The Freeman) is a member. Naa pud ang Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) nga mag-meet every Monday 7:00 PM sa Mt. Carmel Church sa USJ-R (Carbon). Bro. Socrates Fernandez (mayor of Talisay City) is a member of both.

Unless he's not on vacation or travel, Atty. Marcelo Bacalso, legal counsel of CFD and USC law professor and debating team adviser, slugs it out every Sunday noon on Bombo Radyo's 3-hour radio show on interfaith debates and argumentation (but you know, his opponents' reasoning are usually very idiotic).

[estor_boot]

Unless he's not on vacation or travel, Atty. Marcelo Bacalso, legal counsel of CFD and USC law professor and debating team adviser, slugs it out every Sunday noon on Bombo Radyo's 3-hour radio show on interfaith debates and argumentation (but you know, his opponents' reasoning are usually very idiotic.

O.T. i made it a habit not to miss that "Kini ang Kamatooran" every Sunday. its entertaining (beause of idiotic reasoning ) and at the the same time its a venue for me to learn more about he doctrines of my Catholic faith.

for me, the funny guys(no offense meant) were Racaza(Humanism) and Ramin(?).

[benign0]

That still doesn't make them any more credible,

And it doesn't make them any falser either. So the net effect is that originality or lack of originality is irrelevant to the validity of an idea.

in case you haven't figured that out yet. I don't see why you need to stroke your ego so much.

What makes you think I am?

Others have said things better than I, and I can use their words and give them credit.

I never said that you shouldn't. But the thing is you don't give your mind credit because you allow your copied-and-pasted text to speak for you.

If I can rise above my own pride I don't see why you just can't seem to rise above your arrogance. Tsk, tsk.

Me, arrogant? Prove it.

Still don't get it? I still find it hard to believe that you are more intellectually challeged than I thought. Or is that obstinacy? Oh well...

Like I said, it shows that they were not deliberately engaging in a hoax. Your "Osama-mama" analogy is misplaced. You should try to understand the logic used here first.

I never said they were "deliberately" engaging in a hoax., dude.

For all we know they were unwitting pawns in a hoax or flawed ideology just as Osama's, Jim Jones's, and David Koresh's disciples were. None of these disciples followed their leader knowing full well they were following less-than-ideal ideologies. They were all devout followers. If they had the foresight to be a bit more reflective and critical of the ideas they were blindly following then maybe some disasters may have been averted.

As to whether the evidence is in itself strong, as []b]I pointed out earlier[/b], there already is sufficient documentary evidence from eyewitnesses (there are 4 Gospels, in case you've forgotten). There is more documentary evidence attesting to the Resurrection than many other accepted hisotrical events. The question is whether the eyewitnesses were engaging in a hoax.

And as I pointed out earlier, I do not dispute the existence of these "gospels". What I point out is the conflict-of-interest inherent in the authority of the Church itself -- that the very same bunch of people who wrote the gospels were those who established the Catholic Church.

Wouldn't you the least bit concerned about a document that is the basis of the authority of an institution that was written by the leaders of the same institution? It's a recurring theme in history, dude, presidents proclaiming themselves president and writing their own constitution to give them a writ of authority. Sound familiar?

For someone who claims that he "takes apart people's arguments", YOUR arguments have turned out to be throughly flawed. Sort of like asking a thief to do the auditing.

We know better. Your posts reveal that have no credibility in this particular area. Perhaps in others, but not in this one.

Guess again, dude. I think it is you who struggle to make logic's ends meet.

You yourself said that you don't have the mental bandwidth to rely on your own logical constructs and instead copy-and-paste text into this forum.

Oh and let's not forget the important issue that you have still been too afraid to address:

WHEN WILL YOU SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THE CHURCH (AS A WHOLE) IS GOVERNED BY BOZOS? (Uh... and pease try to do it within this month).

I believe I already have.

You are just too tunnel-visioned to accept a truth already staring you in the face (which, in fact is a trait shared by many Pinoys. ).

And by the way, you haven't commented on what I suspect JC might say had he been alive today to meet the Pope and his cardinals.

It is incumbent upon those who make claims or accusations that impugn the character of persons and organizations to substantiate such claims. It is a simple matter of justice.

You erroneously claim that you do not have to do such a thing, and that your claims stand true until I can prove them false. But that is idiotic. If we follow your logic, then I can accuse you of being a thief, a liar, and a child molester, and these charges would hold true until you proved them false. But then you CANNOT prove them false because the charges are not specific enough: I have not brought forth evidence to refute.

I never said that I "did not have to" substantiate my argument, dude. I said that I "hereby consider them true until you prove them false". There's a big difference. I'm simply not satisfied with your "proofs" because I've already seen and articulated in this forum what I think are their flaws. Which means that they have not changed my view that my ideas are true.

While you whine and stomp your feet about how ugly my views are, I have already posted all the arguements to support these views (you just fail to see them). And because I already have substantiated them, I wait for you to show your counter-arguments. All you've shown so far are copied-and-pasted text (which I've posted counter-arguments and opinions on as well; e.g. the whole disciple-as-witnesses issue, etc.).

So following your tiwsted logic, you ARE a thief, liar, and a child molester. But if we follow my logic (and the logic that we all should follow), I would HAVE to substantiate such charges and all you would have to do is demand I prove my charges. And if I cannot, then you are obviously vindicated.

But since you don't follow that logic (and insist on following your "unique" logic), then you stand condemned by your own bad reasoning, and are therefore a thief, liar, and a child molester since I can always just insist such charges are true. It is up to you to prove them false. And, of course, you can't.

Apples to oranges reasoning on your part, dude. The ideas I post here are public domain ideas wherea accusations about a person's criminal inclinations are within private domains. People can make assertions about public-domain ideas because they are easily open to critique and counter-argument. Which is why I proclaim my ideas de facto valid until you can come up with a superior argument (which you have shown to be beyond your intellectual faculties so far ).

Contrast that to a situation where you make an assertion about a person's character (which is not a public domain -- i.e. one that only the State has authority to resolve).

Two different situations, dude, (though obviously not apparent to you).




----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.

[bisaya70]

hahay, kakapoy baya ani niya oi.

[dawn runner]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Lawom ra kaayo. Di ma gets

[Empress_Of_Drac]

hahay...amvort ninyo guys....kadali ra aning topika ah...common sense ang gamita oist...sauns....ngano gud tawon ang simbahan mang mabasol...sauns depende na sa biga sa tawo oist...fagkaimmoral!!!!!!!!lifosockssssss

[dacs]

hahay, kakapoy baya ani niya oi.

The very reason why I ceased posting a response - this is getting nowhere educational. The guy refuses to acknowledge logic as logic is understood in the classical Greek philosophy. If he refuse to listen, let him be. Ang pinakalisud pukawon kadtong dili gustong mahigmata. By his own form of logic, he could not prove our own side of the argument false.


'Mane nobiscum, Domine!' --- Stay with us, Lord!

[mannyamador]

The very reason why I ceased posting a response - this is getting nowhere educational. The guy refuses to acknowledge logic as logic is understood in the classical Greek philosophy.

You're right. He continues to engage in an obvious logical error. It is known as an Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Take note that he said quite clearly:

I said that I "hereby consider them true until you prove them false".

This is a clear example of such a fallacy. The fallacy is defined below.

(http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm)
Definition:

"Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true..."

Take note that there's no difference as to whether it is a so-called "public domain" assertion or not. That is just yet another flimsy excuse for his bad reasoning. Just more smoke and mirrors. It doesn't work. We can see thru it.

So the net effect is that originality or lack of originality is irrelevant to the validity of an idea.

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Therefore, the point you raised is irrelevant.

By his own form of logic, he could not prove our own side of the argument false.

TOUCHE. Dacs!

[mannyamador]

Naa man. Mary's Catholic Apologists (MCA) is one of those. They meet once a week at the Cebu Catholic Television Network (CCTN). Wala na ko kahibalo kung unsang adlawa na. Bobit Avila (moderator of Straight from the Sky and columnist of The Freeman) is a member. Naa pud ang Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) nga mag-meet every Monday 7:00 PM sa Mt. Carmel Church sa USJ-R (Carbon). Bro. Socrates Fernandez (mayor of Talisay City) is a member of both.

Hey Dacs, give me contact info. Maybe we can attend one of their meetings together. I'm interested in joining. PM me. I'll send you my contact info too.