Manganak ta ug Daghan --- Archbishop Palma :)

[burn777]

---

@spring these priests / congregation presumably followed the law of the state which therefore followed the reciprocal of "an act against my will is not my act"

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

OFFTOPIC :

@spring these priests / congregation presumably followed the law of the state which therefore followed the reciprocal of "an act against my will is not my act"

Asa lage makit-an sa article na PRIEST and CONGREGATION operators sa institution ug ni follow lang sa law of the state ? Just because naay word na Catholic gud dayon , magpang wilik ug panikad mga bagtak nato. Ingna ko ug bakakon BURN777.

Mao bitaw naay " RECONCILE " na akong gi butang meaning nanghilabot na ang mga OBISPO tungod kay something is not right . Hatagan man dayon ug conclusion nato and ikaw ang ni PRESUME sa tanan just because CNN said so. Puro man gud ta " PRE " diri . PREMATURE , PRESUME , PREDICTION etc ..... human kung sa research pa , conclusion dayon.

You started a thread already about it , ambot ngano gi dala na nmo diri , naa kay tuyo sa RCC ?

[burn777]

Nope. Just insighting some nonsense litigations.

Nothing against them personaly or whatsoever.

In fact, my grandfather was the contractor of the archbishop palace way back Cardinal Rosales's term but what i dont get is why convince the people in making more problems rather than making a sensuous and practical way of life.. It doesnt makethem unholy or anything.

[seven_segment]

Nope. Just insighting some nonsense litigations.

Nothing against them personaly or whatsoever.

In fact, my grandfather was the contractor of the archbishop palace way back Cardinal Rosales's term but what i dont get is why convince the people in making more problems rather than making a sensuous and practical way of life.. It doesnt makethem unholy or anything.

a child is a problem?

[ed168III]

murag kbaw mo buhi ug bata, ultimate pilosopo

[burn777]

a child is a problem?

a child? did he say "A"
i believe he specifically said daghan
and if di lisod for you..
walk your talk

show me.

[fredvillacampa]

Pag sure palma oy... Kaw pakaon ug pa eskwela kay mangita dayun kog minyoan run, manganak me ug daghan! Wa na jud lami ang simbahan karun... Mao di naku ganahan manimba tungod sa mga tawo nga in.ani.. Huna huna on sad ta niya unsay epekto sa society if daghan ug anak ang usa ka pamilya.. May kung stable ug makapakaon! Hahaha!

[redemption32]

Although I would admit that some posts here (my posts included) are somewhat a GENERALIZATION and an attack on the RCC, but so what?? Palma's homily was also an attack on a bill that most or some of us BELIEVE would help our country in terms of birth control. So now it's ok to attack the government, but not attack the Church!!?? I am sorry but I won't subscribe to that.

If people speak out against something that millions of people also believe in, then they should also be open to criticisms, no matter how harsh.

And if your argument is "media must have twisted his words for a better sound bite", then why did no one from Palma's side clarified his statements?? If he indeed were just misunderstood, why was there no retraction or clarification?? Because he meant what he said in the purest sense of his words.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Although I would admit that some posts here (my posts included) are somewhat a GENERALIZATION and an attack on the RCC, but so what?? Palma's homily was also an attack on a bill that most or some of us BELIEVE would help our country in terms of birth control. So now it's ok to attack the government, but not attack the Church!!?? I am sorry but I won't subscribe to that.

Of course .... like I said , attack the HOMILY of the ARTICLE, not of the ARCHBISHOP's. Ika wna mismo ni sulti you were never there to know about it. So you better cease connecting name shere that are irrelevant. Heck I even wondered myself that SUNSTAR needs a spanking but then again , nobody knows why they let it slide.

If people speak out against something that millions of people also believe in, then they should also be open to criticisms, no matter how harsh.

That would be UNFAIR . Even on your part , I am in no business to CRITICIZED you because I want to say something about you or to your family unless TRUTH behold I am speaking of FACTUAL STATEMENTS .

For the NTH time .... you cant just say something out of what you READ , it should be of what you KNOW.

And if your argument is "media must have twisted his words for a better sound bite", then why did no one from Palma's side clarified his statements?? If he indeed were just misunderstood, why was there no retraction or clarification?? Because he meant what he said in the purest sense of his words.

Why do you think I reacted here ? Do not assume the SILENCE as a CERTAINTY on your part . It doesnt work that way , at least not all the time if you insist.

@FREDVILLACAMPA ...

Mao pod diay wala nakay simba simba , kay ug ni simba lang unta ka atong misaha and naminaw sa HOMILY niya , you would be addressing your IGNORANCE to the HOMILY of the REPORTER of the NEWS ARTICLE instead to Archbishop Palma.

[redemption32]

Of course .... like I said , attack the HOMILY of the ARTICLE, not of the ARCHBISHOP's. Ika wna mismo ni sulti you were never there to know about it. So you better cease connecting name shere that are irrelevant. Heck I even wondered myself that SUNSTAR needs a spanking but then again , nobody knows why they let it slide.

Ok. I get your point. But if I were to attack the HOMILY of the ARTICLE, the ARTICLE also states that it was Palma who said that. So it would be just the same.

Ok, ana nalang.. IF, Palma did say that and meant it that way, then what he said was IDIOTIC and I see him as a HYPOCRITE. But ONLY IF, he said that and meant it that way.

Happy??

That would be UNFAIR . Even on your part , I am in no business to CRITICIZED you because I want to say something about you or to your family unless TRUTH behold I am speaking of FACTUAL STATEMENTS .

For the NTH time .... you cant just say something out of what you READ , it should be of what you KNOW.

Unfair huh? But if the Bishop or the RCC speaks out against the RH Bill or any other issue, while the rest of the world gives them FACTUAL EVIDENCE, then they could do so because they are holding THE TRUTH! Can I shake my head even more or what??

Why do you think I reacted here ? Do not assume the SILENCE as a CERTAINTY on your part . It doesnt work that way , at least not all the time if you insist.

Ok, I'll retract my statement of certainty. But then I'll throw the question instead.. Why the heck didn't they clarify what was said and interpreted by the media?? Did they really mean it that way? Or were they misunderstood? And if so, why didn't they clarify what was said.

For a group who wants to teach and preach, they sure make vague statements, don't they??