Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

What's going on here, in re religion, e.g. God's existence?

susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
This is an experimental thread, so anything can happen to it; but hang around and you might see something interesting, in any way, and at any time.



Dear readers here, thanks for coming over to my new thread.

Okay, let us get started with our survey on two threads, both authored by theists but of different schools of Christianity, even conflicting schools, see Annex below.

Right away I will say that they, ElCid and Kidlat, they should first work as to concur on the premises they think most important in their respective schools of Christianity.

Then, as they want to establish the worth of their each school on the basis of the Bible, they must work together to concur on what premises they both mutually accept of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, in connection with the Bible.

And also since they are both into science, in particular scientific cosmology, i.e. on the origin of the universe considered scientifically, they should also work as to concur on the premises most important to be in support of their each one's school of Christianity.

For the information of readers here, ElCid is a Roman Catholic, while Kidlat is an Iglesiast, a member of the locally founded Iglesia ni Cristo, what we might call a new protestant denomination.

However, protestant churches and/or denominations, they would rather call the Iglesia ni Cristo a cult, and not a church or denomination of Christianity.

What is the difference between a cult in Christianity and a denomination or even church in Christianity?

From my stock knowledge, a cult accepts Christ but they owe allegiance to a founder who still lives or had lived in what we might call current history even though the founder had gone to his place in the Christian heaven.

With protestant churches or denominations, they all accept Christ, but very important they don't owe allegiance to any living or current leader even though now deceased – except the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics owe allegiance to the Pope in Rome; that is why most protestants also consider the Roman Catholic Church itself to be a cult.

Well, that is my stock knowledge on what is a cult and what is a church and/or denomination.


Annex
• Hindi daw maoobserbahan ang big bang ayon kay KidlatNgayon
ElCid
• 1
• 53
KidlatNgayon
2 hours ago
• Material na bagay lang daw ang nialalang ng Dios sa anim na araw?
ElCid
• 1
• 54
KidlatNgayon
2 hours ago
«1

Comments

  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    For the information of readers here, ElCid is a Roman Catholic, while Kidlat is an Iglesiast, a member of the locally founded Iglesia ni Cristo, what we might call a new protestant denomination.

    However, protestant churches and/or denominations, they would rather call the Iglesia ni Cristo a cult, and not a church or denomination of Christianity.

    What is the difference between a cult in Christianity and a denomination or even church in Christianity?

    From my stock knowledge, a cult accepts Christ but they owe allegiance to a founder who still lives or had lived in what we might call current history even though the founder had gone to his place in the Christian heaven.

    With protestant churches or denominations, they all accept Christ, but very important they don't owe allegiance to any living or current leader even though now deceased – except the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics owe allegiance to the Pope in Rome; that is why most protestants also consider the Roman Catholic Church itself to be a cult.

    Well, that is my stock knowledge on what is a cult and what is a church and/or denomination.


    Annex

    WHAT IS THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO?

    An Introduction to the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ)


    THE "Iglesia Ni Cristo" (Pilipino for "Church Of Christ") was established on July 27, 1914 in the Philippines. From her humble beginning in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila, the Church is now a global Church with more than 6,000 congregations spread throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, North and South America, and Australia.

    Others describe the Iglesia Ni Cristo as the largest independent Christian Church in Asia, and the largest, most powerful and influential indigenous Church in the Philippines. However, still many people, especially from outside the Philippines, have a little knowledge or information about the Iglesia Ni Cristo, and those little information they got from “outsiders” or non-members, and also from detractors and critics of the Church. Thus, their descriptions and information are incomplete and misinforming, if not biased, one-sided, subjective and full of prejudice.

    To straighten things up, let us find the truth about the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ). The following describes what Iglesia Ni Cristo truly is:


    A Religious Organization

    The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) is a religious organization whose primary purpose is to worship the Almighty God based on His teachings as taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and as recorded in the Bible. As a religious organization, the Church's major activities include worship service, missionary works, and edification.

    The solemn gathering of the faithful, the regular congregational worship service, is held by every local congregation inside the house of worship twice a week, usually on Thursdays and Sundays. It consists of hymn-singing, prayers, and study of God's words for proper applications in daily living (cf. I Cor. 14:15 and 26).

    Also, as a religious organization whose primary purpose is to worship the Lord God, the Iglesia Ni Cristo builds houses of worship as the main center for the religious activities of each local congregation. Moreover, as a fulfillment of God's commandment to His servants to build Him houses of worship for His own glory (cf. Hag. 1:8, KJV).

    The Iglesia Ni Cristo Central Temple

    The main house of worship of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is the Central Temple located at Quezon City, Philippines. It was dedicated to God on July 24, 1984, as part of the Church's 70th anniversary celebration of its establishment in the Philippines. Today, the Iglesia Ni Cristo houses of worship can be found not only throughout the Philippines, but also in different countries where the Church gain foothold. These houses of worship stand as landmarks in every place where it were built.

    An Independent Church


    The Iglesia Ni Cristo is an independent Church, not a denomination or sect. It is neither affiliated to any federation of religious bodies nor itself an assembly of smaller religious organizations.

    A True Christian Religion

    The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) is a true Christian religion that adheres to the unadulterated teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ written in the Bible. We believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledging Him as Lord and Savior. We also acknowledge Jesus Christ as the head of this Church, because the Church of Christ is His body. However, our beliefs regarding the Lord Jesus Christ is based solely on the teachings of the Bible.

    Thus, the Iglesia Ni Cristo adheres to the unadulterated Christian teachings written in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God, but for the true Christians, the Father is the only true God:

    “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (I Corinthians 8:6 NIV)

    According to Apostle Paul, “For us (referring to the New Testament Christians) there is but one God, the Father.” Thus, the rejection of the belief in Trinity (that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) and her upholding of the biblical teaching that the Father alone is the only true God are among the strong proofs that the Iglesia Ni Cristo is indeed the true Christian religion, the religion that adheres to the pristine Christian teachings written in the Bible.

    A “Radiant” Church

    In Ephesians 5:27, Apostle Paul described the Church that will be presented to Christ in His second coming as follows:

    “And to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:27, New International Version)

    The Church Of Christ is described as a "radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any blemish, but holy and blameless." Hence, the Iglesia Ni Cristo moulds its members toward perfect unity of faith and practice, that each one will be devoted to a life of holiness and service founded on true Christian teaching.

    A “Filipino Church”?

    Many call the Iglesia Ni Cristo “a Filipino Church.” However, the Church Of Christ is a Church for every one who will heed the call of God and embrace its faith — regardless of his or her nationality, cultural background, social standing, economic status, and educational attainment. The truth is, today, the membership of the Iglesia Ni Cristo comprises at least 120 nationalities.

    The Church Of Christ is now spread throughout the six continents of the world. The Church has locale congregations in more than 100 countries and territories. We have members and ministers who are Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Europeans, Africans, Canadians, Australians, Indians, Mexican, Brazilian, and from other parts of the world.

    Indeed, It is Not A "Cult"

    In saying that the Iglesia Ni Cristo is not a "cult," we are referring to the modern use of the word "cult" which has a negative connotation:

    (1) A "cult" is "a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader" (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, c. 2009).

    However, the Iglesia Ni Cristo has a system of belief based solely in the Bible. Although her teachings differ from many denominations and churches, it is because that the teachings of other denominations and churches are not in the Bible, while the teachings of the Iglesia Ni Cristo are all in the Bible. For example, majority of the denominations and churches believe in the Trinity, however, the term "Trinity" and the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Bible, while the teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo that the Father alone is the only true God is the one clearly written in the Bible (cf. John 17:1 and 3; Malachi 2:10; I Corinthians 8:6).

    (2) A "cult" is also "an extreme admiration of something or somebody, an idolization of something or somebody" (Ibid.). The Iglesia Ni Cristo worships only God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Her belief about Brother Felix Y. Manalo is plain and simple, that Brother Manalo is the messenger of God in these last days, a man sent by God to preach the Iglesia Ni Cristo and the pristine Gospel in these last days. We don't call him prophet, pope, bishop or of any title, just "Brother Felix Y. Manalo." We respect him, but we do not exalt him, nor worship him. We followed all his teachings because all of his teachings are written in the Bible, and he never invented any doctrine of his own.


    (3) Today, the word "cult" means "false religion." However, Catholics and Protestants easily dismissed as a "cult" others having beliefs different from theirs. But the "standard" to determine if a religion is a indeed "cult" or a false religion is not the Catholic dogmas, nor the Protestant dogmas, but the teachings written in the Bible. The Bible says:

    “Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written...” (I Corinthians 4:6 NIV)

    Doctrines not written in the Bible (unbiblical doctrines) or the teachings of men if used in the service and worship of God is vain and useless:

    “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” (Matthew 15:9 NIV)

    Thus, the real "cult" or "false religion" are those who adhere to unbiblical or unscriptural doctrines, teachings and doctrines made by men. Therefore, the Iglesia Ni Cristo is not a cult, but the true Christian religion upholding the unadulterated teachings written in the Bible because all her doctrines can be found in the Bible.

    The Bible is the sole basis of our faith. All the doctrines, beliefs and practices uphold by the Iglesia Ni Cristo are based in the teachings written in the Bible.

    The One True Church


    The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true Church established by Christ:

    “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, .and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:18 NIV)

    The Lord Jesus Christ Himself established the true Church and He established only one Church, He said, “I will build my church” and not “I will build my churches.” This Church has a name and it is important that she continuously be called in that name, because:

    “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NIV)

    The Bible said, “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” This “name” is the name God gave to the Lord Jesus:

    “And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one.” (John 17:11 TEV)

    The Lord Jesus prayed to God to “Keep them safe by the power of your name.” The name He is referring to is the name given to Him by the Lord God. So the name given to Him by the Lord God is also the name “given to men by which we must be saved.” This is the name “Christ”:

    “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
    “Then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead...” (Acts 4:12,10 NIV)

    Thus, the true Church established by Christ is named after Christ. It is only right that the true Church is named after Him because:

    (1) Christ is the founder and owner of the Church:


    “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18, NKJV)

    (2) The Church is the body of Christ and He is the head of the Church:

    “There is a deep secret truth revealed in this scripture, which I understand as applying to Christ and the church.

    “For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Saviour of the church, his body.
    “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it.” (Ephesians 5:32 & 23 & 25, TEV)

    How is the Church called after the name of Christ? In Romans 16:16, this is what the Bible says:

    “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.” (Romans 16:16, NIV)

    Also in Acts 20:28, this is what the Bible says:

    “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers to feed the church of Christ which He purchased with His blood.” (Acts 20:28, Lamsa)

    Actually, even Catholic authorities attest that the Church is indeed called after Christ, the “Church of Christ”:

    “5. Did Jesus Christ established a Church?
    “Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.” (Cassily, Francis B., S.J. Religion: Doctrine and Practice for use in Catholic High Schools. 12th and revised edition. Imprimi Potest: Charles H. Cloud, S.J. Provincial of the Chicago Province. Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1934, p. 442-443.)

    Thus, the name of the true Church the Lord Jesus Christ established is “Church of Christ” (“Iglesia Ni Cristo” in Pilipino), and those not called in this name cannot claim that they are the true Church and whom the Lord Jesus Christ will save come Judgment Day because:

    “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NIV)

    Thus, no one can claim to be the One True Church if their Church is not called in the name "Church of Christ. The Bible said, "...there is no other name under heaven given to men which we must be saved." The name “Iglesia Ni Cristo” is the Tagalog for “Church Of Christ” - the name of the One True Church.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    How can the Iglesia Ni Cristo claim that she is the true Church established by Christ if she emerged only in 1914? The Iglesia Ni Cristo emerged only in 1914 because the first century Church Of Christ was apostatized. It was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who attested that apostasy will take place in the first century Church Of Christ:

    “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” (Matthew 24:9-11, NIV)

    The Lord Jesus Christ Himself warned His disciples that: (1) they will be handed over and persecuted and put to death”; and (2) many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” Because of these “false prophets,” the Lord Jesus Christ also warned us that “many will turn away from the faith.” This is also mentioned by Apostle Paul:

    “Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (I Tim. 4:1, New Living Translation)

    Thus, both the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles warned us that many of the disciples will “TURN AWAY from the faith.” These words, “turning away from the true faith,” are synonymous with the word “apostasy”:

    “But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall APOSTATISE from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons.” (Darby Bible, emphasis mine)

    How many will be deceived? In Weymouth translation of Matthew 24:11, this is what we could read:

    “Many false prophets will rise up and lead multitudes astray.” (Matt. 24:11 Weymouth)

    The Lord Jesus Christ Himself told us that His faithful servants will be persecuted and be put to death, and the multitudes will be led astray by false prophets. Thus, this is the reason why the first century Church of Christ did not remained.


    THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY

    Christ said that “you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.” Indeed, the first century Christians were persecuted and put to death. There’s the Jewish persecution where Stephen was one of the Christians who were put to death. Then the imperial persecution of the Church started by Roman Emperor Nero in 64 AD:

    “Tacitus recorded the rumor that Nero had ordered the fire that destroyed part of the city of Rome. This rumor was so widely accepted by the people that Nero had to find a scapegoat. He diverted feeling against himself to the Christians by accusing them of arson and by engaging in a saturnalia of destruction of the Christians.” (Christianity Through the Centuries, p. 91)

    Then, another imperial persecution broke out still in the first century AD, this time by Emperor Domitian:

    “Persecution broke out again in 95 during the reign of the despotic Domitian. The Jews had refused to pay a poll tax that had been levied for the support of Capitolinus Jupiter. Because the Christians continued to be associated with the Jews, they also suffered the effects of the emperor’s wrath. It was during this persecution that the apostle John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation.” (Christianity Through the Centuries, p. 91)

    Thus, what the Lord Jesus Christ prophesied in Matthew 24:9 was fulfilled. The faithful, including the apostles, were put to death during the imperial persecutions. Indeed, many Christians were put to death during these two imperial persecutions of the Church in the first century. During Domitian's persecution of the Church, Apostle John was exiled in an island called Patmos. He was the last apostle who died in c. 90-100 AD. With the death of the apostles, however, something happened to the Church:

    “For the years after the record in Acts ends, evidence for the history of the Christian Church becomes more scanty. There began to be passing references to it in pagan writers. These writers make it seem likely that the Roman Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of the city of Rome in A.D. 64. It is also very likely that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were put to death at Rome about this time…
    “When the original Apostles died, the leadership of the Church was taken over by local pastors known as bishops. Under them were ministers of lower rank, known as presbyters and deacons. The Church organized the area of the Roman Empire into provinces. The bishops at the head of the Christian communities in the large cities such as Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage ranked highest.” (The New Book of Knowledge, vol. 3, pp. 280-281)

    Thus, when the Apostles died, not much was recorded on what went on in the Church Of Christ but during this period of silence the administration of the Church fell into the hands of the bishops. Soon after the bishops took over the administration of the Church in the second century, the doctrines of this Church began to be infected with poison:

    “At first the history of the Roman Church is identical with the history of the Christian truth. But unhappily there came a time when streams of poison began to flow from the once pure fountain.” (The World’s Great Events, vol. 2, pp. 163-164)

    This control of the Church administration by the bishops who began to teach different doctrines was the fulfillment of what Apostle Paul prophesied concerning the overseers (bishop):

    “Also of YOUR OWN SELVES SHALL MEN ARISE, SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30, KJV, emphasis mine)

    DEPARTING FROM THE TRUE FAITH

    The great apostasy did not consist in the destruction of the first century Church Of Christ and the establishment of another one. It consisted in the deterioration of the Church established by Christ. Immediately after the death of the Apostles, during this period the bishops took over the administration of the Church and the Church became very different from what Christ founded (or the first century Church):

    “For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

    The differences between what used to be the Church of Christ in the first century and the Church that was revealed in the second to the fourth centuries are profound:

    “It is necessary to note that we should recall the reader’s attention to the profound differences between this fully developed Christianity of Nicaea and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth….What is clearly apparent is that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was a prophetic teaching of the new type that began with the Hebrew prophets. It was not priestly, it had no consecrated temple, and no altar. It had no rites and ceremonies. Its sacrifice was ‘a broken and contrite heart’. Its only organization was an organization of preachers, and its chief function was the sermon. But the fully fledge Christianity of the fourth century, though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, was mainly a priestly religion, of a type already familiar to the world for thousands of years. The center of its elaborate ritual was an altar, and the essential act or worship the sacrifice, by a consecrated priest, of the Mass.” (The Outline of History, pp. 552-553)

    These profound changes, made on the original teachings of Christ, dealt great violence on the teachings of the Bible for the purpose of enhancing the interests of the Catholic Church:

    “Jesus too, being a Galilean, was of Aryan stock, a remarkable man whose teachings had, in the course of centuries, been deformed out of all recognition in the interests of the Catholic Church.” (The Vatican in the Age of Dictators, p. 168)

    Adding insult to injury, Catholic authorities acknowledge such changes without shame and even with pride:

    “We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn.” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)

    Catholic authorities even boast that they did not derive their faith in Jesus from the Scriptures:

    “ ‘Without the Scriptures’, says Mohler, ‘the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us….Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.” (Ibid. p. 50)

    Hence, those responsible for this apostasy of the first century Church Of Christ were the bishops under whose administration these profound changes took place. The first bishop identified as having introduced changes into the Church was Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome about 110 A.D. He was the first to use the term Catholic Church in reference to the Church Of Christ:

    “The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible. ..St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name ‘The Catholic Church…” (The Question Box, p. 132)

    This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man:

    “He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)


    Ignatius belongs to the so-called “Church fathers.” These Church Fathers were the source of the teachings that the Catholic Church taught and implemented beginning the second century. However, such persons were not immune from errors and yet, the apostatized church approved their teachings:

    “Obviously much that Christ and the apostles preached was in time reduced to writing. Hence there grew up a library composed of men called ‘the fathers of the Church’. They were called so because in apostolic days the word ‘father’ also meant teacher of spiritual things, and these were among her earliest teachers. But, unlike the apostles, all of whom enjoyed infallibility, they were not immune from error nor inspired as the scriptural writers had been. In so far as they dealt with questions of faith and morals, much of what they wrote was approved by the Church, and thus, became part of written tradition.” (Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why, p. 142)

    As a result of the teachings of these early Church Fathers, the Church Of Christ or Christianity became Roman Catholicism, the last and the greatest of the mystery religions:

    “On that dies Domini, or Lord’s Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy…
    “By the close of the second century, these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation through communion, in the death-overcoming powers, of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the ‘Lamb of God’ which replaced, in Christianity, the bloody offerings of older faiths. The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshippers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour. It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the ‘mystery of the Mass’, Christianity became the last and the greatest of the mystery religions.” (Ceasar and Christ, pp. 599-600)

    Thus, the claim of the Catholic Church that they succeeded the apostles is not a proof of being the true Christ founded by Christ, but instead, a strong proof that the Catholic Church is indeed the apostate Church, the fulfillment of what the Bible prophesied that after the death of the apostles, among the ranks of the bishops will rise false teachers that will distort the truth.


    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST PROMISED THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WILL BE RE-ESTABLISHED


    It was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who prophesied that multitudes of His disciples will be led astray. However, even though the first century Church of Christ will be apostatized, this is what the Lord Jesus promised:

    “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16 NKJV)

    The Lord Jesus Christ said that “other sheep I have.” He called them His “other sheep” because they “are not of this fold.” He will bring them also and they will hear His voice and they will be “one flock.” The “fold” or “flock” mentioned refer to the “Church Of Christ” (Acts 20:28 Lamsa). Thus, when the Lord said that He has other sheep “not of this fold,” He meant, He has other sheep “not of THIS Church Of Christ.” The “other sheep” are not of the Church Of Christ of the first century. Remember that the first century Church Of Christ was apostatized.

    Thus, even though the first century Church Of Christ was apostatized, Christ said He has “other sheep.” He said that he will bring them also and will be “one flock.” Therefore, Christ prophecy regarding His “other sheep” is His promised of the re-establishment of the Church Of Christ.

    Thus, the gap between the first century Church Of Christ and the Church of Christ that emerged in the Philippines was because the first century Church was apostatized. However, Christ promised that He will re-establish the Church of Christ. Hence, the emergence of the Iglesia Ni Cristo in the Philippines in 1914 was the fulfillment of Christ’s promise of re-establishing His Church.


    God's Testimony Regarding the Iglesia Ni Cristo

    The emergence of the Iglesia Ni Cristo in the Philippines in 1914 is the fulfillment of the Lord Jesus Christ's promise of re-establishing His Church. However, it is also the fulfillment of God's prophecy about His sons and daughters from the Far East, from the ends of the earth:


    “Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 43:5-6 KJV)

    We firmly believe that the Iglesia Ni Cristo is the fulfillment of this prophecy. God recognize the members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo as His sons and daughters from the ends of the earth. In a related prophecy, God also recognize the Iglesia Ni Cristo as His people:

    “Indeed the LORD has proclaimed To the end of the world: ‘Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Surely your salvation is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.' And they shall call them The Holy People, The Redeemed of the LORD; And you shall be called Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken.” (Isaiah 62:11-12 NKJV)

    Thus, we firmly believe that the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) is not only a religious organization, a Christian religion, but the true Church Of Christ today and God's nation in these last days.


    If you have question/s, feel free to ask. You can contact us at:

    THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO facebook page
    https://www.facebook.com/TheIglesiaNiCristo

    or you can email us at: [email protected]


    http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.ca/2013/08/what-is-iglesia-ni-cristo.html
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thanks, Kidlat, for your exposition on the Iglesia Ni Cristo, appreciate it.

    What is now the main bone of contention between you and ElCid?
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, on prayer being an act of faithlessness on the part of Christians toward God, the thread of Prik, see below; that thread is a case of the psychology of hatred from Prik’s part against God and Christians.

    And we must inquire from Prik:

    Dear Prik, what is your concept of God, for you could be hitting with hatred the wrong god or just a straw god, thus wasting your spite of hatred on the wrong target.

    So, dear Prik, tell me and readers here, what is your concept of God?

    Dear readers here, atheists are moved by hatred and not reason, in their conduct by which they act out their atheism.

    And psychologists have a good field of research ahead of them, namely, how to explain the hatred of atheists against God, Whom they could have gotten all wrong in regard to the concept of.


    Title of thread, Prayer is an act of faithlessness
    Author Prikongkong


    Annex

    Google: psychology of atheists

    About 543,000 results (0.42 seconds)

    Search Results


    The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/.../the-new-psychology-atheism
    The New Psychology of Atheism. New research reveals some of the emotional factors involved in disbelief. Posted Mar 21, 2016. SHARE. TWEET. EMAIL.


    The Psychology of Atheism
    www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
    The title of this paper, "The Psychology of Atheism," may seem strange. Certainly, my psychological colleagues have found it odd and even, I might add, a little ...


    The Psychology of Atheism by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries
    www.ligonier.org/learn/series/psychology_of_atheism/
    Atheists say that religion is constructed to meet deep psychological needs. Dr. Sproul turns the tables, showing atheism’s vested interest in rejecting God. He explains that the issue is not intellectual but moral: Man suppresses the truth about God and seeks to live in unbounded ...


    Psychology of Atheism - Simple To Remember
    www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/psychology-of-atheism/
    notes from lecture delivered at Columbia University by Paul C. Vitz, Ph.D. Many people have psychological reasons for atheism. Factors of upbringing, sins of ...


    Why are so many psychologists atheists/non-religious? - Quora
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-psychologists-atheists-non-rel...
    I would like a source to that survey and a number of how many people were asked, but: When you study psychology, you may take some courses on evolutionary ...


    Psychology of Atheism - Oxford Handbooks
    www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/.../oxfordhb-9780199644650-e-023
    by M Farias - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles
    This essay suggests that atheists endorse a range of naturalistic beliefs, such as belief in progress and in science. Social-psychological evidence for this belief ...


    Amazon.com: Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism ...
    https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-Psychology.../1586176870
    Buy Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders.


    Why some people become atheists (a Psychological point of view ...
    https://www.2knowmyself.com/Why_some_people_become_atheists
    This is a psychology article. I know that some people become atheists after believing that they came across enough evidence that shows that a God doesn't exist ...


    Faith of the Fatherless Paperback - Dr. Paul C Vitz : Ignatius Press
    www.ignatius.com/Products/FFL-P/faith-of-the-fatherless.aspx
    Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.


    Causes of atheism - Conservapedia
    www.conservapedia.com/Causes_of_atheism
    Oct 28, 2016 - Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the ...


    Searches related to psychology of atheists

    famous atheist psychologists

    the psychology of atheism rc sproul

    the psychology of atheism sproul

    faith of the fatherless the psychology of atheism pdf

    professor paul c. vitz

    psychology today atheism

    paul vitz books

    can a psychologist believe in god

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    Next

  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, I am glad I started this thread, because now I have come to certainty that there are three kinds of threads in ROT in regard to religion, and most in particular on the existence of God.
    1. Threads whose authors like yours truly seek to learn from others and also seek to inform others on one's own insights which are founded on reason and observation, and in an expanded form, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

    Authors of No. 1 threads like yours truly (and please bear with me if you feel annoyed with my self-reference), authors of No. 1 threads, they are like myself always into inviting peoples here to for us work together as to come to concurrence on issues at hand, and not into quarreling, in particular aggressively into strife against other peoples.


    2. Threads whose authors are into hatred against other peoples, these are almost always threads from atheists; now they can no longer engage in raving mad foul language unlike before, when they could post even the whole spread out genitals of the female species, as all the message content in a post addressed to a theist.


    3. Threads whose authors are quarreling over ideas and practices, these threads are almost always between Catholics and others what I might call Protestants of all schools on one side, and Iglesiasts on the other side.

    I find these quarrels to be silly, because they could just as well and better, just expound on their reciprocal doctrines and practices as clear as they could manage, and inform their opponents that they believe in their doctrines and practices, and that they have the privilege of what I will call, the privilege of faith, just like their opponents.

    And let their opponents just also expound clearly on what from their part are their doctrines and practices, expound on them honestly, period.



    There, dear readers here, the three kinds of threads in ROT in regard to religion and in particular on God existing; when you read a thread, see which kind it is.

    Better you concentrate on reading No. 1 threads, because they are the ones most profitable to your advancement and enhancement of true knowledge.

    But woe, such is human nature, that people prefer quarrels instead of common endeavor to know more and more, and more correctly everything under the sun; and also woe, if not quarrel, then stubbornness in their self-committed ideas and practices.


    Think about that, dear readers of this thread.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thanks, Kidlat, for your exposition on the Iglesia Ni Cristo, appreciate it.

    What is now the main bone of contention between you and ElCid?

    El Cid (and others like Sophion) just likes to take part of what I said in a thread and makes it a subject for a new thread to try and embarrass me.

    So far, when they do this, they are the ones getting embarrassed instead because new references against their doctrines arise (some which they do not know until I expose them with references).

    I do not pick a bone with them, I do not fight with them. They just get mad from the truths that I expose against their own beliefs. :D
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thanks, dear readers here, for your presence, appreciate that very much.

    Now, for your orientation in this forum of realm of thought, please go to this thread, below, and you will be I am sure - and modesty aside from myself, forgive me - you will be wiser in how to read as to find out whether a thread and the posters there are into inanities and stupidities, or profitable to your advancement and enhancement of genuine knowledge.

    Thread of concern: The Universe is Alive. It is Eternal. And it may very well be God itself!


    Happy reading and learning!



    Later.
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers of this thread, thanks a lot for your presence.

    Now, I like to share with you what I know to be useful for profiting from threads broadly in re religion, and in particular on the debate on God existing or not.

    You see, the debate on religion is grounded on reciprocally pure subjectivism from the parts of the parrying protagonists; but debate on the existence of God, it should not be motivated by subjectivism, at least and essentially, not on the objective existence of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

    I say debate on religion is grounded purely on subjectivism, for example, with Jews and Muslims, pork is not allowed, on religious grounds, but with Christians it is allowed, nothing ir-religious about eating pork.

    And I will not go into that for Hindus, the cow is sacred, no eating its meat and no killing it at all, and the cow (feminine in grammar gender, but colloquially covering cattle collectively) can roam freely about in the streets.*

    But with the monotheists outside India, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, we slaughter the cow and feast on its meat called beef.

    Another example, originally Jews had many wives and unlimited concubines, all of them lawfully kept by the male Jew, and Muslims today can have four wives, and also unlimited concubines, all legally kept by the male Muslim; but not Christians, unless only with Mormon men who can and do have several 'sister' wives, which however can get them in trouble with the law in the US – almost no longer enforced nowadays, though.

    But with the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, there can be no subjectivism, the issue of God existing must be resolved purely on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, all these grounds of proof are not into religious biases, except when God figures in a religion as with the monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam and Judaism, in which God is then debated on purely subjectivism, in particular on his personal relationship with individual religionist or religionists as collectively making up a well-defined group.

    More on this thought from me, in my posting in the thread not from me, though: "The universe is alive... (Sophion)."


    *Cow dung is applied on floors and walls in rural districts in India and for fuel.
    http://experiencehinduism.com/scientific-facts/gobar-cow-dung-walls-floors
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    Another example, originally Jews had many wives and unlimited concubines, all of them lawfully kept by the male Jew, and Muslims today can have four wives, and also unlimited concubines, all legally kept by the male Muslim; but not Christians, unless only with Mormon men who can and do have several 'sister' wives, which however can get them in trouble with the law in the US – almost no longer enforced nowadays, though.
    It is true that the Jews and Muslims had many wives as dictated by their own laws. In fact King David and King Solomon had reputations of having hundreds of wives and concubines. It can be deduced that this is a forgivable sin, however, with Solomon, the moment that he was influenced by some of his wives' pagan traditions, that is when God cut him off as His follower.

    In this time and age, both Jews and Muslims do not believe in Christ so they do not follow Christ's commandment about having just one wife:

    1 Timothy 3:2
    International Standard Version
    Therefore, an elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, stable, sensible, respectable, hospitable to strangers, and teachable.
    But with the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, there can be no subjectivism, the issue of God existing must be resolved purely on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, all these grounds of proof are not into religious biases, except when God figures in a religion as with the monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam and Judaism, in which God is then debated on purely subjectivism, in particular on his personal relationship with individual religionist or religionists as collectively making up a well-defined group.

    This is what God says in the bible:

    Jeremiah 4:22
    New International Version
    "My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good."
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, thanks for your presence.

    Dear Kidlat, I really like your posting in my threads, you are not like other posters who would appear in my threads and then disappear when I imagine they realize that I want to talk sense and intelligence with them on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind - they disappear because they do not care to be genuinely rational and intelligent and be grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

    You are different, dear Kidlat, I will call you brother, because although you keep to your privilege of faith, faith in your membership in the Iglesia Ni Cristo, still when you come to ideas outside of your faith, you do talk sense instead of nonsense, and you never use raving mad foul language against me, unlike with previously atheists here.

    And you know, I find that you even admit that you cannot join me in proving God exists on purely reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, because for you the Bible is the ground for your 'knowledge' of God existing.

    I commend you most sincerely and highly, because of your honest faith in the Iglesia Ni Cristo, and your coherency and consistency in your thoughts, as to be true to your faith in the Iglesia Ni Cristo, but open to issues which do not compromise your faith in the Iglesia Ni Cristo.

    So, I will not as you have noticed seek to argue with you on the ground of your faith in the Iglesia Ni Cristo, because I respect your faith, or more correctly, your privilege of faith, as also all peoples who have the privilege of faiths in their own respective churches or faiths or religions here.

    But with atheists, since they claim to be rational and very intelligent and every learned, I like really to examine them to see whether they are really rational, intelligent, learned, and I find them to be into foul language and dodging all the time, when I talk with them about the existence of God, and ask what are the grounds on which they base their 'certainty' if at all, they turn out to be totally vacuous, in regard to reason and observation and truths and facts and the history of ideas with mankind.

    But they are very good in dodging all the time from the issue itself of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

    So?

    So, dear readers here, and dear Bro. Kidlat, I will now see whether I can and will, and almost surely that is going to be now my agenda here in this thread for a hobby, of studying atheists' thinking if at all they think, by taking up with the regularly posting atheists in PEX here in this ROT board, with atheists here, like for examples: Ateo, he with the self-description as Non est Deus. Fac ***** eo,* and Escrotum,** who are now most visible here in ROT.

    From your part, dear Bro. Kidlat, you can help me with bringing in quotes from the Bible on God existing, then I will take the quotes you bring up, as contributions of thinking mankind in very ancient times, but prescinding from taking them as coming from God Himself, only as thoughts of thinking mankind in the times and climes of the ancient Jews in the what we now call lands of the Old Testament.

    Please keep posted in this thread, dear Bro. Kidlat.



    *Non est Deus. Fac ***** eo" = Latin, literally: “No(t) is God. Do with him,” there is a blasphemous play on Fac.

    **Escrotum = *****, the pouch of skin containing the male testes or testicles.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thank you Brother susmariosep! :)
    But with atheists, since they claim to be rational and very intelligent and every learned, I like really to examine them to see whether they are really rational, intelligent, learned, and I find them to be into foul language and dodging all the time, when I talk with them about the existence of God, and ask what are the grounds on which they base their 'certainty' if at all, they turn out to be totally vacuous, in regard to reason and observation and truths and facts and the history of ideas with mankind.

    But they are very good in dodging all the time from the issue itself of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

    With regards to our Atheist friends, God has answers for you written in the bible:


    The bible called them (unbelievers) fools:


    Psalm 14:1
    New Living Translation
    For the choir director: A psalm of David. Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

    ^God also called them corrupt and evil

    God calls them "wicked and proud":

    Psalm 10:4
    English Standard Version
    In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”

    In this version of the bible (NET), here is how the verse is worded:
    NET Bible
    The wicked man is so arrogant he always thinks, "God won't hold me accountable; he doesn't care."

    What does God have in store for the non-believers (if they don't change) and the wicked?

    Revelation 21:8
    New International Version
    But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

    In short, they will go to hell (according to the bible, not me!)

    1 Corinthians 6:9
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to nor perform homosexual acts,

    You have to expect them to be rude even if you try to engage them in a respectful discussion:

    Matthew 7:8
    New Living Translation
    "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

    Proverbs 9:7 He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. 8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. 9 Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser, Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning.…
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear Bro. Kidlat, forgive me, but you must be full time here in PEX realm of thought!

    This text from you seems to be hard to understand in its last line, as from the Bible, notice the word I put in bold:

    In short, they will go to hell (according to the bible, not me!)

    1 Corinthians 6:9
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to nor perform homosexual acts,



    Shouldn't the last nor be or?


    Best regards.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear Bro. Kidlat, forgive me, but you must be full time here in PEX realm of thought!
    No, I'm not full-time here in PEX, I'm just on vacation and like you, this is what I like to do in my spare time. I think that this is the noblest use of time, to try and save some souls at least! Moreover, I live in Canada so it is daytime here while you are sleeping there, if you are in the Philippines!:D
    This text from you seems to be hard to understand in its last line, as from the Bible, notice the word I put in bold:




    Shouldn't the last nor be or?


    Best regards.

    ... nor men who submit to nor perform homosexual acts,

    The last two phrases is a contraction of:

    nor men who submit to homosexual acts, nor men who perform homosexual acts


    In another bible version, this verse is worded this way:

    New Living Translation
    Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

    So that phrase "men who submit to homosexual acts" are called male prostitutes!
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, thanks for your presence.

    Dear Bro. Kidlat, thanks for your reply to my inquiry, appreciate that.

    I am here in the Philippines.


    Now, dear readers of this Realm of Thought board, I think that I will instead of looking up posts of atheists here like from Prik, Ateo, Escrotum, etc. to refute in toto, I will to save myself time and labor, just contribute my comments to threads where I find atheists to be also into, with my knowledge founded on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

    And my objective is to dilute what is otherwise thoughts from atheists here not really grounded by them on reason and observation, and more expansively, not on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind.
  • ukok102nakukok102nak PEx Rookie ⭐
    :rpflag: ANG TOTOONG TAO DAW AY MAY
    TOTOONG MALASAKIT SA KANIYANG KAPWA TAO
    MAY DIOS AT WALANG DIOS NA PINANINIWALAAN SA BAWAT PANANAMPALATAYA NA MAYROON
    ANG INDIBIDUAL NA UMIIRAL NA NILIKHA
    NG POONG MAYKAPAL
    ANG DIOS NA MABUTI AT HINDI SINUNGALING

    `®: KAILANGAN TALAGA AKSYIONAN NG LAHAT O GAWAN NG MABUTING SOLUSYON
    ANG SULIRANIN SA PARAANG MAKAPAGBAGONG ANG MGA TAONG NALULONG
    SA KORAPSYION NA ITO
    NA TILA BAGA'Y DI NAALAMAN NG MGA TAONG NAKATUON LANG LAMANG
    ANG ATESYION SA MGA BAGAY NA PANSARILI NA DULOT NG PAGKALULONG
    SA KAPANGYARIHAN NA HATID NG SANLIBUTAN SANGLIBUTANG TEMPORAL
    :read:
    https://www.google.com.ph/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3481788

    (d:) at sapagkat
    nangangasulat
    :read:
    Jude 7
    Gayon din ang Sodoma at Gomorra, at ang mga bayang nasa palibot ng mga ito, na dahil sa pagpapakabuyo sa pakikiapid at sa pagsunod sa ibang laman, ay inilagay na pinakahalimbawa, na sila'y nagbabata ng parusang apoy na walang hanggan.
    8 Gayon ma'y ang mga ito rin naman sa kanilang pagkagupiling ay inihahawa ang laman, at hinahamak ang mga paghahari, at nilalait ang mga puno.
    9 Datapuwa't ang arkanghel Miguel, nang makipaglaban sa diablo, na nakikipagtalo tungkol sa katawan ni Moises, ay hindi nangahas gumamit laban sa kaniya ng isang hatol na may pagalipusta, kundi sinabi, Sawayin ka nawa ng Panginoon.
    10 Datapuwa't ang mga ito'y nangalipusta sa anomang bagay na hindi nila nalalaman: at sa mga bagay na talagang kanilang nauunawa, ay nangagpapakasira na gaya ng mga kinapal na walang bait.
    11 Sa aba nila! sapagka't sila'y nagsilakad sa daan ni Cain, at nagsidaluhong na walang pagpipigil sa kamalian ni Balaam dahil sa upa, at nangapahamak sa pagsalangsang ni Core.
    12 Ang mga ito'y pawang mga batong natatago sa inyong piging ng pagiibigan, kung sila'y nakikipagpiging sa inyo, mga pastor na walang takot na nangagpapasabsab sa kanilang sarili; mga alapaap na walang tubig, na tinatangay ng mga hangin; mga punong kahoy sa taginaw na walang bunga, na makalawang namatay, na binunot pati ugat;
    13 Mga mabangis na alon sa dagat, na pinagbubula ang kanilang sariling kahihiyan; mga bituing gala na siyang pinaglaanan ng pusikit ng kadiliman magpakailan man.
    14 At ang mga ito naman ang hinulaan ni Enoc, na ikapito sa bilang mula kay Adam, na nagsabi, Narito, dumating ang Panginoon, na kasama ang kaniyang mga laksalaksang banal,
    15 Upang isagawa ang paghuhukom sa lahat, at upang sumbatan ang lahat ng masasama sa lahat ng kanilang mga gawang masasama na kanilang ginawang may kasamaan, at sa lahat ng mga bagay na mabibigat na sinalita laban sa kaniya ng mga makasalanang masasama.
    16 Ang mga ito'y mga mapagbulong, mga madaingin, na nangagsisilakad ayon sa kanilang masasamang pita (at ang kanilang bibig ay nangagsasalita ng mga kapalaluan), nangagpapakita ng galang sa mga tao dahil sa pakikinabangin.
    17 Nguni't kayo, mga minamahal, ay alalahanin ninyo ang mga salitang nang una'y sinabi ng mga apostol ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo;
    18 Kung paanong sinabi sa inyo, Magkakaroon ng mga manunuya sa huling panahon, na magsisilakad ayon sa kanikanilang masasamang pita.
    19 Ang mga ito ang nagsisigawa ng paghihiwalay, malalayaw, na walang taglay na Espiritu.
    20 Nguni't kayo, mga minamahal, papagtibayin ninyo ang inyong sarili sa inyong lubhang banal na pananampalataya, na manalangin sa Espiritu Santo,
    21 Na magsipanatili kayo sa pagibig sa Dios, na inyong asahan ang awa ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo sa ikabubuhay na walang hanggan.
    22 At ang ibang nagaalinlangan ay inyong kahabagan;
    23 At ang iba'y inyong iligtas, na agawin ninyo sa apoy; at ang iba'y inyong kahabagan na may takot; na inyong kapootan pati ng damit na nadungisan ng laman.
    24 Ngayon doon sa makapagiingat sa inyo mula sa pagkatisod, at sa inyo'y makapaghaharap na walang kapintasan na may malaking galak, sa harapan ng kaniyang kaluwalhatian.
    25 Sa iisang Dios na ating Tagapagligtas, sa pamamagitan ni Jesucristo na ating Panginoon, ay sumakaniya nawa ang kaluwalhatian, ang karangalan, ang paghahari, at ang kapangyarihan, sa kaunaunahang panahon, at ngayon at magpakailan man. Siya nawa..



    :ty:




    godbless
    unto all always
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thanks Ukok for your presence and contribution.

    But you know? I am into the theme of proving God to exist or not, purely on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

    And I have written time and again that it is all right for peoples upholding some sacred writings to be their authority: like for example with Christians and also for example with Muslims, the first have the Bible and the second have the Koran.

    I don't argue with them because they are not within my sphere of concern, which is reason and observation and more expansively: truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas, all which are founded on our nature-endowed faculty of reason, and our faculty of observation with our senses and our consciousness.

    Anyway, thanks for your presence, and I will grant that you are within your right to limit yourself to your sacred writing, that is what I call your privilege of faith.
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, what I seek to achieve here is to among other things, to get peoples to realize that first and before anything else, man has got to come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

    And that certainty must be founded on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and support from the ideas of mankind, from the best thinkers since the dawn of human consciousness and reason and intelligence.

    Because unless man has the certainty of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, and that from reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, it is irrational and un-intelligent to debate on the existence of God with atheists, and also to adopt this or that religion where God figures as the most important entity in existence.

    Now with folks who base their knowledge of God on their authoritative written sources, like with Christians on the Bible and with Muslims on the Koran - I am also a Christian but of the liberal protestant school of thought in re religion, with Christians and Muslims, they can avail of their ‘inspired’ texts, for the present purpose, not as inspired but as grounded on reason and observation of mankind, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

    Dear religionists of all kinds which accept the existence of God, but basing your knowledge of God on your sacred written sources, if I may, examine the writings in them your ‘inspired’ sources, and you know what?

    You will find many things in them 'inspired' writings that are grounded on reason and observation of mankind, and more expansively, on truths, facts, and logic, and the history of ideas.

    That is my suggestion to you, because when you just take your 'inspiried' sources on the ground that they are inspired sources, i.e. coming from God, that is a very refutable position, namely, you are susceptible to getting toppled with your argumentation founded on your 'inspried' sources, on the ground that you are already into assuming the existence of God while you have not yet proven the existence of God.

    You ask me, "...assuming the existence of God? And that is invalid argumentation?"

    Yes, and they your enemies call it circular reasoning (correctly though), namely, you are proving God to exist with because God says so in your God-'inspired' or authored sources.

    Do you see it, I mean the circular reasoning from your part?

    It's like this from you when you want people to accept your money as genuine money, by pointing out to them that there is a statement in your paper bills declaring that the bills are genuine money instruments printed by and from the Central Bank of the Philippines.

    That is circular reasoning, and you will not be into circular reasoning ultimately, when you get the people doubting the genuinity of your money to go with you to the Central Bank of the Philippines, for the examiners there to authenticate the genuinity of the bills as coming from and printed by them, the Central Bank of the Philippines.

    Think about that, I refer to circular reasoning, and also think about my proposal on how to make use of your 'inspired' sources.
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Happy New Year! Everyone here.


    Dear Iglesiasts, in particular, Bro. Kidlat, please bear with me, but I want to tell you, Oh INC colleagues here in ROT, that I notice though it has always been on the tip of my tongue, that you Oh Iglesiasts, you seem to have a what I might call with exaggeration a lugubrious religion of a kind.

    What about that, dear INC colleagues here, because you don't celebrate Christmas, that is very peculiar with your way of following Jesus Christ, Whose birth the rest of Christendom celebrate this holiday season, with joy and yes excitement - though with some people dangerously and noisily with explosive fireworks.

    Anyway, I wish you Iglesiasts, a Happy New Year!

    And please also take into account my proposal that in the Bible there are enough words on reason and observation, that can be availed of by Iglesiasts to argue on God existing, with quotes namely from the Bible; even yes, prescinding from insisting on your privilege of faith, that it is an inspired revelation from God to mankind - I mean there are words in the Bible that can stand purely on reason and observation for their cognitive value, in the way of proving God to exist, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


    Tomorrow again.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Happy New Year! Everyone here.


    Dear Iglesiasts, in particular, Bro. Kidlat, please bear with me, but I want to tell you, Oh INC colleagues here in ROT, that I notice though it has always been on the tip of my tongue, that you Oh Iglesiasts, you seem to have a what I might call with exaggeration a lugubrious religion of a kind.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR Bro. susmariosep!

    Is INC lugubrious as you say?


    If anything Bro. susmariosep, we are the happiest religion in the world without having to comply with others' false and hypocritical expectations! :D

    We celebrate often, and we do that whenever we hold our humongous evangelical missions all throughout the world! We celebrate the fact that we serve the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ the way they want to be served - make their truth known and guide people to the right path of worshiping them, thereby ensuring their salvation!

    Here are just a few sampling of how we celebrate:

    At the philippine Arena
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqMkHMXPRy4

    INCONCERT in Eastern Canada:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O70yl19zJoM&index=6&list=PLT6zRg-6_15N-M1MWDJoqV-Xh0V0xx3pn

    INCONCERT Southern Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeyBPZoCQBo&list=PLT6zRg-6_15NyCeYjaJ-ErIvySYm8Nx9e

    INCONCERT Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIau_M9TX_M&index=6&list=PLT6zRg-6_15P5jJkDcDUeK1EhL4DOhVPf

    AND MANY MANY MORE!!! :)
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Happy New Year! Everyone here.


    What about that, dear INC colleagues here, because you don't celebrate Christmas, that is very peculiar with your way of following Jesus Christ, Whose birth the rest of Christendom celebrate this holiday season, with joy and yes excitement - though with some people dangerously and noisily with explosive fireworks.

    Anyway, I wish you Iglesiasts, a Happy New Year!

    “The Iglesia Ni Cristo is not against giving praise and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, Christmas celebrated on December 25 was originally called the ‘Birthday of the Sun’ and the great pagan religious celebration of the Mithras cult celebrated all through the Roman Empire.”


    THE TWENTY-FIFTH of December was considered by Catholics and Protestants as Christmas day – the “birthday of Christ.” It is the most celebrated holiday of the year throughout the world. Yet amidst all merry making activities of the “yuletide season”, members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) are visibly non-participants in the worldwide commemoration of the alleged birthday of Jesus on December 25.

    “Why?” others would surely ask. “Don’t they believe in Jesus as the Christ, our Savior? Are they not happy about the birth of the Savior? Are they not Christians? If they do celebrate their own birthdays, why not Christmas?” These questions readily arise whenever one comes to know the beliefs of the Iglesia Ni Cristo regarding “Christmas.”

    However, the non-participation of the Iglesia Ni Cristo in the “December 25 festivities” does not mean that we are against fun and merriment; neither are we anti-social nor against fostering peace and goodwill among men. Neither are we opposed to the idea that the birth of Christ is a day of rejoicing. On the day Christ was born, angels from heaven rejoiced (cf. Luke 2:13-14). We must also make it clear that the Iglesia Ni Cristo are one in the belief that the baby born in Bethlehem who was the son of Mary is Christ, our Savior.

    So, why the Iglesia Ni Cristo refrain from participating in celebrating Christmas?

    Christmas is Alien to the Gospel


    Nowhere in the New Testament is December 25 specified as the birth of Christ. The following is the biblical account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem:

    “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirini-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:1-8 RSV)

    Biblical historians know so well this narrative account of the events surrounding the birth of Savior. On this, Catholic Bible scholars have this to say:

    “Origin of date –Concerning the date of Christ’s birth the Gospels give no help; indeed, upon their data contradictory arguments are based. The census would have been impossible in winter…Authorities more over differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during nights of the rainy season.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, s.v. “Christmas.”)

    It is evident that the Bible is silent regarding the exact date of Christ’s birth. The Gospel narrates that He was born during the period when Roman census was in progress. Contrary to the December 25 tradition, it is argued that the census would have been impossible in winter. Some authorities pointed out that Shepherds could not or would not keep the flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season. Furthermore, a secular historian writing about Christmas noted that:

    “The most widespread myth in the Christendom is that of Chrismas. Those who take the Bethlehem birth-story as history readily accept the traditional date of Christ’s birthday. But all branches of the Church agree that no data exist for determining the day, month, or year of the event, nor was such festival celebrated in Apostolic or early-Post Apostolic times.” (Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, p. 249)

    History attested that Christmas was nor celebrated in the Apostolic and early post-Apostolic times, and that no data exist for determining the day, month, or year of Christ’s birth. Moreover, it would have been absurd for the inspired writers of the New Testament to miss recording the date of Christ’s birth if it should be commemorated by His disciples. Thus, it is not surpringsing for us to find neither explicit pronouncements nor implicit statements from the Bible effecting the celebration of Christmas more so on December 25, as the “birthday of Christ.”

    Indeed, there was no verse in the Bible that says that Jesus was born on December 25, that “Christmas” was celebrated by the early Christians, and that the birth of Christ is to be commemorated. Thus, Christ has nothing to do with the December 25 celebration though He is supposed to be the center of the festivities.

    The First “Christmas”


    There has never been a single statement from Jesus nor from the disciples commanding the commemoration of His birth. Instead, we find extra-biblical sources for the celebration traceable to pagan festivities of which the Catholic Church is fond of adopting as its own. More so, these appeared only centuries after the establishment of the Church of the New Testament.

    “How old is Christmas Day?...One would naturally think that the anniversary of so great an event as the birth of the Son of God would have been a day of religious joy from the earliest years of the Church; but it is clear that this was not the case. There is no mention of it in any of the oldest lists of the Church festivals…In the part of the Church which follows the Latin rite the celebration of Christmas on the twenty-fifth of December was begun probably about the middle of the fourth century. An ancient tradition assigned that day as the probable date of the great mystery of the Nativity…” (The external s of the Catholic Church, p. 204)

    Christmas was not celebrated, nor known in the Apostolic and early post-Apostolic times. The Catholic book quoted above attested that there is no mention of Christmas in any of the oldest lists of the festivals of the Catholic Church, and that the celebration Roman Catholic Church (the Church which follows the Latin rite) of Christmas in December 25 was begun probably about the middle of the fourth century. The first mention of Christmas celebrated on December 25 was in 336 AD only.

    “The First mention of Christmas as a festival of the Church on 25 December, goes back to AD 336. It comes in the Philocalian Catalogue (354), a civil and religious calendar compiled at Rome.” (the History of Christianity, p. 147)

    Thus, history attested that the “first Christmas” would have been held only on the fourth century AD, or more than three centuries after the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. Certainly, however, Christ had nothing to do with the dated for He had ascended into heaven in the first century. Obviously, His apostles could not be the source of the selection of the date of the Nativity in the fourth century since they all died even before the second century. Surely, the celebration of Christmas emerged not because it was commanded by the Lord Jesus or His Apostles, but by other reasons.

    The Origin of the Celebration

    What was the origin of the celebration of Christmas? Who was responsible for the initiation of the christmas celebration?

    “Pentecost and Ephipany were the next feasts added to the calendar; the latter on January 6, coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating the birth of the new year. Christmas originated in the fourth century, when Constantine joined it with a pagan feast celebrating the birthday of the sun on December 25.” (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, p. 56)

    This Catholic book admitted that Christmas originated in the fourth century when Constantine joined it with a pagan feast. Any diligent student of Church history can easily discern why this is so. The influence of paganism to the Catholic Church began overtly when Constantine the Great ascended to the throne as the first “Christian emperor” of the Roman Empire. However, at first, the celebration of Christmas was done on January 6, coinciding with the pagan festivals celebrating the birth of the new year.

    The Origin of the Date

    At first, the celebration of Christmas was held on January 6. However, who was responsible for the initiation of the December 15 celebration? What were the reasons for choosing that particular date from among the 365 days of the year?

    “Some early Fathers and writers claimed that December 25 was the actual date of Christ’s birth, and that the authorities in Rome established this fact from the official records of the Roman census that had been taken at the time of the Saviour’s birth. Saint John Chrysostom held this opinion and used it to argue for the introduction of the Roman date in the Eastern Church. He was mistaken, however, for nobody in Rome ever claimed that the records of the census of Cyrinus were extant there in the fourth century, and much less that Christ’s birthday was registered in the lists. In fact, it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of the Saviour’s birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in different parts of the world.” (Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, p. 59)

    Catholic authorities admitted that that the actual date of the birth of Jesus was unknown. If any biblical verse would be cited to support their claim, we would have found it in their writings on Christmas. But again, nowhere could we find substantial presentation of biblical evidences but rather their admission of the absence of any evidence at all. Christmas originated in the fourth century when Constantine joined it with a pagan feast. But, at first, the celebration of Christmas was done on January 6, coinciding with the pagan festivals celebrating the birth of the new year. January 6? How the date of the celebration of Christmas became December 25?

    “Formerly Christmas was celebrated on January 6, but Pope Julius I, at the beginning of the fourth century, changed the day to December 25, since the date is unknown.” (The Handbook of the Catholic Practices, p. p. 176)

    Readers might have noticed that Julius I changed the date of Christmas from January 6 to December 25. From then on, Christmas was celebrated in the West on December 25, but in the East, it was continuously celebrated on January 6:

    “After the triumph of Constantine, the Church at Rome assigned December 25 as the date for the celebration of the feast, possibly about AD 320 or 353. By the end of the fourth century the whole Christian world was celebrating Christmas on that day, with the exception of the Eastern churches which celebrated it on on January 6.” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. VI, p. 403, s.v. “Cristmas”)

    Thus, it is a fact that only a Roman Pope by the name of Julius I was responsible for assigning December 25 as the date of the celebration of Christmas.

    Whose Birthday was “Christmas”?

    First celebrated on January 6 (coinciding with the pagan celebration of the birth of New Year), the Church at Rome changed it to December 25. Obviously, Julius I not only erred in assigning the date of Christ’s birth per se but was even indecisive in moving the date from January 6 to December 25. Whose birthday was “December 25”?

    “…December 25 was called the ‘Birthday of the Sun,’ and great pagan religious celebrations of the Mithras cult were held all through the empire....” (The Externals of the Catholic Church, p. 276)

    The feast celebrated on december 25 was originally a pagan feasts, a great pagan religious celebration pf the Mithras cult. It was originally called the “Birthday of the Sun” – Sol Invictus. Thus, Pope Julius I officially declared December 25 as the birthday of Jesus when in fact it is the supposed birthday of a pagan God called “Sol Invictus.”

    Mithras Cult over the Roman Catholic Church

    What made Julius I, the “head” of the Roman Catholic Church, subscribe to pagan festivals and practices? Why the choice of December 25 that coincide with the celebration of the Mithras cult of the “birthday of the Sun” – their god, Sol Invictus?

    “The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence. The recognition of Sunday (the day of Phoebus and Mithras as well as the Lord’s Day) by the emperor Constantine as a legal holiday, along with the influence of Manicheism, which identified the Son of God with the physical sun, may have led Christians of the fourth century to feel the appropriateness of making the birthday of the Son of God coincide with that of the physical sun. The pagan festival with its riot and merrymaking was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit or in manner.” (The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 48)

    The pagan festival called Saturnalia (the Birthday of the Sun – Sol Invictus) was deeply entrenched in popular customs to be set aside by Catholic Church. This festival was so popular that it was celebrated all throughout the Roman Empire. Obviously, this led the Catholic Church in the fourth century “to feel the appropriateness of making the birthday of the Son of God coincide with that of the physical sun.”A Catholic book has this to say:

    “…the choice of December 25 was influenced by the fact that the Romans, from the time of Emperor Aurelian (275), had celebrated the feast of the sun god, (Sol Invictus: the Unconquered Sun) on that day. December 25 was called the ‘Birthday of the Sun,’ and great pagan religious celebrations of the Mithras cult were held all through the empire. What was more natural than that Christians celebrate the birth of Him Who was the ‘Light of the World’ and the true ‘Son of Justice’ on this very day?...” (The Externals of the Catholic Church, p. 276)

    Noted catholic theologian, John F. Sullivan, admitted that “…the choice of December 25 was influenced by the fact that the Romans, from the time of Emperor Aurelian (275), had celebrated the feast of the sun god, (Sol Invictus: the Unconquered Sun) on that day.” He added, “What was more natural than that Christians celebrate the birth of Him Who was the ‘Light of the World’ and the true ‘Son of Justice’ on this very day?”

    Hence, the December 25 tradition with its practices is a “Christianized” pagan festival. The riot and merry making is dedicated no longer to Sol Invictus but now to Christ Jesus! What were once dedicated to a pagan god are now dedicated to Christ as birthday presents. What insult can be greater than this?

    Yet Catholic authorities neither mind nor prohibit lay Catholics from participating in pagan festivals. Why? Again, John F. Sullivan, a noted Catholic theologian, has this to say:

    “It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans, and which owed their origin to their appropriateness for expressing something spiritual by material means…she has oftenfound that it was well to take what was praiseworthy in other forms of worship and adapt it to her own purposes, for the sanctification of her children. Thus, it is truein a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a production of those pagan creeds; but they are the taking of what was best from paganism, the keeping of symbolical practices which express the religious instinct that is common to all races and times.” (Ibid., p. 226)

    Catholic authorities admit their interest in adopting customs and traditions from pagan rites and ceremonies in their worship allegedly for the sanctification of their members. Thus, an indirect admission of that Mithras cult overcoming the Roman Catholic Church.

    What’s Wrong With Paganism?

    The meaning of the term pagan gives us reasons to rerject anything pagans do and practice.Webster’s New International Dictionary states:

    “Pagan…the opposite of Christian…a person who is not a Christian…not a Christian.”

    It is interesting to note that even the etymology of the term pagan would show the incompatibility of Christianity and paganism. Any good book in church history would contain the origin of the term.

    “Churches were first established in the cities. The people in the country continued to be heathen when the people in the citieshad already become Christians. The Latin word for country people was pagani. So the name pagani of Pagans became equivalent to heathen. Fron the cities Christianity spread among the heathens or pagans, in the country.” (The Church in History, p. 19)

    How do true Christians view pagans and their practices? In Ephesians4:17-18, 20, Apostle Paul states:

    “In particular, I want to urge you in the name of the Lord, not to go on living the aimless kind of life that pagans live. Intelectuallythey are in the dark, and they are estranged from the life of God, without knowledge because they have shut their hearts to it.
    “Now that it is hardly the way you have learned from Christ, unless you failed to hear him properly when you were taught what the truth is in Jesus.” (Jerusalem Bible)

    Apostle Paul attested to the fact that pagans live an aimless life, being estranged from the life of God. Living the way as they do is hardly the way of Christ and Apostle Paul urged all Christians not to go on living as pagans do. The supposed celebrant of Christmas has this to say:

    “And he said to them, ‘How ingeniously you get around the commandments of God in order to preserve your own tradition.” (Mark 7:9. Jerusalem Bible)

    To the Catholic claim that pagan forms of worship could sanctify her children, the Bible said:

    “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" (Matthew 15:8-9 RSV(

    Thus, although the primary purpose of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is to praise and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, but we never ignore the pronouncements of the Bible. We praise and glorify Him in accordance with the teachings of the Bible, the reason why we don’t participate in Christmas celebration. The Christmas celebration is pagan and anything pagan is abhorrent to Christ. To make this an activity honoring Him on His birthday is not only erroneous and unscriptural but a great insult to Him as well. How can one, in his mind, offer a person something which the latter abhors?

    http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/why-iglesia-ni-cristo-does-not.html
Sign In or Register to comment.