Peanut Gallery: Menorrah vs. Totnak: The 1st Century Church completely apostatized

[X-wind]

I hope they can define the words "apostatized" and "1st Century Church" correctly to avoid confusion. (just like in a normal debate[WUDC,AUDC,UADC,PIDC,etc...] debaters starts with definition)

[theotech]

Romans 2:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

care to lay your exegesis on that verse

[Jameaux]

I rarely visit/post in RoT but this one's interesting. No bias or whatsoever but it seems like Menorrah's aura is that of a protagonist and Totnak's is of an antagonist. Just basing on the way they post.

[jhephoi]

Parang MMFF lang ang peg ni Totnak. #YesterdayTodayTomorrow Sana wag lang madisqualify. :P

FYI, using http://www.wordcounttool.com, it seems that the Introduction by the Negative is two words more than the maximum words limit. So I guess that's minus one point already for Observance criterion?

During this time of the year, people, especially Filipinos around the world, are focused and keeping themselves busy in preparing and double-checking their recipes for a sumptuous Media Noche feast to welcome the coming year. Markets, both wet and dry, are bustling with varying meats, fruits, seafood and veggies with every seller hoping to make a killing at the cash register.

Somehow, somewhere, the busy lifestyle of the urban jungle made this celebration superficial and purely material. Your ordinary cosmopolitan family is more concerned about what foods should be served on the table rather than making sure that everyone in the family would make it to this annual feast. The traditional values seem to have been drowned by the fast-paced lifestyle that we all are enjoying. We tend to forget that this season is a time to celebrate filial love, family unity and togetherness amidst these trying and busy times.

But is it enough for us to say that all those traditional Filipino values have completely disappeared? Is it right for us to conclude that no one, not even those who doesn’t dwell on the busy lights of urban living, still exists to this very day that continues to celebrate, observe and share that very same family love and devotion?

Through this debate, I am hoping to show you that old values don’t die. And that those people who cling to these values do everything to pass it on to their offspring.

I am representing myself and my beliefs on this debate. I guess there’s no special need to expound on that. As what my respectable counterpart mentioned in his introduction, this discussion isn’t an official Catholic vs. INC debate but rather, a civilized discussion between two people who are sitting on different sides of the fence but are willing to talk through their differences with courtesy and respect.

Let me extend my gratitude to Menorrah, who had taken a courageous stand in accepting this friendly challenge. We all know that this is going to be a first in RoT and I’m hoping that this won’t be the last.

Special thanks to both Ischaramoochie and Ateo for accepting the difficult task of being the moderators/judges for this debate. I would assure you that it’s all worth it.

This debate has given me the enviable chance to prove that my beliefs as a Catholic are not founded on shallow and shaky grounds. And I was fortunate enough to have gotten this opportunity to do this as part of my preparations for the coming year.

I am hoping that everyone who would witness this intellectual exchange of ideas would also be blessed amidst the uncertainty that most of us face in our spiritual lives.

May God bless us all as we re-trace the roots of His Church from the 1st century to this very day.

Let us all witness how truthful Jesus is to His word. For His word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

[kleng44]

care to lay your exegesis on that verse

copy paste ko na lang..

As stated by Apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians in Rome:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.}" (Rom. 2:12, 14-15, New International Version)

Apostle Paul explained that those who had not received the gospel, such as those who lived and died before the emergence of the Church of Christ in 1914, will be judged through the law that is written in their hearts with their consciences bearing witness.

Those who have not been reached by the preaching of the words of God also know what is good and bad because there is a law written in their hearts. For instance, even an ordinary man knows that acts such as murder and theft are evil, for his conscience dictates so. Thus, the people who sin apart from the law will be judged through the law written in their hearts. God will judge those who are being judged by their hearts because He is greater than our hearts, and knows all things (I Jn. 3:20).

God Almighty will judge those who lived and died before the emergence of the Church of Christ, and even those who are not reached by the Church's preaching of the gospel.

Nonetheless, people like us who have the opportunity and means to listen to the true gospel have the responsibility to fulfill what God requires of us in order to be saved. We must "seek the law" because on the day of Judgment, we will be judged according to the gospel. (Mal. 2:7; Rom. 2:16).

[Ateo]

Parang MMFF lang ang peg ni Totnak. #YesterdayTodayTomorrow Sana wag lang madisqualify. :P

FYI, using http://www.wordcounttool.com, it seems that the Introduction by the Negative is two words more than the maximum words limit. So I guess that's minus one point already for Observance criterion?

I counted Totnak's post using my MSWord 2007 at that time he made the post and the count was 494. No, he did not lose points for violation of the word-limit rule as there was no violation, in my view.

But thanks for keeping our debaters on their toes.

[-alucard-]

clarification lang moderator ateo:

what is the role of technicalities on this debate?

what would be the ramification if a debater failed to adhere to a technical rule?

are there any allowances/tolerances on technical requirements?

in the previous pex debates, if a debater failed to post his piece at the specified timeframe - usually binibigyan ng extension (12 hours?).

now that merong word limit - ano ang tolerances?

AH! AH! AH! AH! AH!

[jhephoi]

I counted Totnak's post using my MSWord 2007 at that time he made the post and the count was 494. No, he did not lose points for violation of the word-limit rule as there was no violation, in my view.

But thanks for keeping our debaters on their toes.

Shouldn't contracted words be counted as the number of words when they're not contracted? I checked this rule online and found this one.

Or check the Reading & Writing tab under this link.

[Mustaine]

^wow, you're really in to this.

clarification lang moderator ateo:

what is the role of technicalities on this debate?

what would be the ramification if a debater failed to adhere to a technical rule?

are there any allowances/tolerances on technical requirements?

in the previous pex debates, if a debater failed to post his piece at the specified timeframe - usually binibigyan ng extension (12 hours?).

now that merong word limit - ano ang tolerances?

AH! AH! AH! AH! AH!

Pwede naman sigurong ipa-edit na lang kapag sumobra, tama ba?

[jhephoi]

^wow, you're really in to this.

Pwede naman sigurong ipa-edit na lang kapag sumobra, tama ba?

I guess I just wanted to see if the rules are really being followed. Also, according to rule #7, no further editing is allowed after posting.

[Ischaramoochie]

Shouldn't contracted words be counted as the number of words when they're not contracted? I checked this rule online and found this one.

Or check the Reading & Writing tab under this link.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ignorancia factum excusat, ignorantia legis non excusat

We would assume totnak is unaware of this grammatical rule, and has acted in good faith, keeping with the spirit of the parameters of the debate to the best of his knowledge as evidenced by the word count being only two above maximum if the rule were to be considered, and well below it if it were to be omitted. Since we are now aware of the fact that contractions are to be considered as more then one word, the rule shall apply to all the succeeding posts.

[jhephoi]

^ Okay.

Where the rules are silent or implicit, the moderator will rule based on his interpretation of fairness and standard debate practice.

[Ferdinand]

Menorah: GPS ang theme

Tonak: Old values, Tradition

Isang makabago at isang makaluma.

Alin kaya ang mas magandang guide?

[theotech]

copy paste ko na lang..

As stated by Apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians in Rome:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.}" (Rom. 2:12, 14-15, New International Version)

Apostle Paul explained that those who had not received the gospel, such as those who lived and died before the emergence of the Church of Christ in 1914, will be judged through the law that is written in their hearts with their consciences bearing witness.

Those who have not been reached by the preaching of the words of God also know what is good and bad because there is a law written in their hearts. For instance, even an ordinary man knows that acts such as murder and theft are evil, for his conscience dictates so. Thus, the people who sin apart from the law will be judged through the law written in their hearts. God will judge those who are being judged by their hearts because He is greater than our hearts, and knows all things (I Jn. 3:20).

God Almighty will judge those who lived and died before the emergence of the Church of Christ, and even those who are not reached by the Church's preaching of the gospel.

Nonetheless, people like us who have the opportunity and means to listen to the true gospel have the responsibility to fulfill what God requires of us in order to be saved. We must "seek the law" because on the day of Judgment, we will be judged according to the gospel. (Mal. 2:7; Rom. 2:16).

Please teach me my friend. I can't read in Romans 2 about people who had not reached by the gospel, but by the law (which is the Mosaic and Judaic law ). In Romans 2, Paul discussed that the Jews is not supreme over Gentiles (ignorant of the law).

[nikeairviturin]

Asus!

Halos igapos nyo at ikulong si menorrah wag lang makipagdebate dito sa pex.

Tapos ngayon "we got your back menorrah"

Mga ipokrito!

we got your back Menorrah. I for one don't expect you to "win". quotes on "win" a certain "sore winner" comes to mind. anything you will present in the debate has already been beaten to death here in some way or another and no amount of rational clear concise straigthforward presentation coming from you will ever enlighten those who have closed minds. but then, no INC care they will believe or not right? we just keep on expounding and sharing what we received. anyway, more power to you

[Gunnar]

Basta ang matalo sa debate na to alam nyo na gagawin nyo. BLAME THE MODERATOR. hehehe

[TLG]

bakit di pa nag-uumpisa ang debate?

[krams2]

si TLG na lang kaya tutal siya naman tong may intellectual mind logically with supremacy in comprehension NYAHAHAHA

ikaw kaya ang magaling lolz

[Equis]

I hope they can define the words "apostatized" and "1st Century Church" correctly to avoid confusion. (just like in a normal debate[WUDC,AUDC,UADC,PIDC,etc...] debaters starts with definition)

Tama ka dyan.

Dyan pa lang talo na RCC.

Kung alam ni Menorrah ibig kong sabihon.

@TLG - nag umpisa na kasama dyan yung introduction.

[razzer_rising]

Btw ask ko lang kung anong mangyayari sa winner and loser sa debate. Aside from being "immortalized" sa ROT via sticky thread ni mod mooch, what pa? bragging rights?

what if iban ang loser and the winner gets to pick one rot pexer to ban para mas may weight ang pagkapanalo. joke.