Monday, August 20, 2007

Side Notes: Questions Answered, Pt. 3

What is the "inappropriate relationship" all about?

There have been many stories told, but I will leave things as they stand now because most are hearsay. Whether it was improper, innapropriate, or whatever, I will leave that decision to your hearts.


Anonymous said...

Nobody really dares to ask about this?

Now, I like to know if there was indeed an inappropriate relationship, since we are a Christian Catholic Community, we are to Uphold MORALITY of our Members Most Specially in our LEADERS!

Nakakahiya Teaching tayong Teaching Pagkatapos Ang Speaker may MORALITY issue pala. SIno Maniniwala?

Pag Si hmmn LLL AAaaa gggg aa ang Speaker and talking about Relationship & good morals and etc etc for godly values DI na ako maniniwala.

Postmodernist said...

These things are really difficult for a "newbie" like me in the community to understand and to finally get what happened that resulted to the "schism". Yes I agree that after being in SFC for quite sometime, hearsay and gossips is one of the weak points of this community.

Also about the preceding comment claiming: "Ang Speaker may MORALITY issue pala. SIno Maniniwala?" In reply, in fairness to Christianity and especially CFC, the objectivity of the teaching (e.g. stealing is evil) is the only basis for the validity and tenability of the said teaching, NOT the one teaching. For one to reject a claim or teaching, one has to prove on the grounds of scrutiny and use rational and objective means to refute the claim, and not use the person as one of the factors; in logic we call this the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. Consider Jesus' words: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." -Matthew 23:2-3.

So if for example Pope Alexander IV (who is one of the most notoriously immoral popes) were alive and told you that by virtue of his Papal authority as successor of Peter that committing fornication and adultery is wrong and objectively evil, then you ought to obey and believed NOT because of the pope is righteous or himself immoral, rather because of the authority he received from Christ.

The problem with some people in the community is that they're too subjective and focused on who is preaching and hence they place the validity of the teaching to the personality whose doing the preaching. Just because he's nice good looking, and speaks well they believed and place utmost credibility to that preacher, even if in reality that person is already teaching heresy. One should distinguish credibility which is the correspondence of accurately telling truth, from the correspondence of correlating the truth into one's life.

WillyJ said...

It is to the credit of the church that the so-called "bad popes", (around twelve of them, including Pope Alexander IV) didn't define any crazy doctrine in their time, and this is a testimony in favor of the papacy, the Lord's promise of infallibility, and the promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail. You raise very valid points. True enough, we should focus on the preaching and not on the preacher. In reality however, the common folks would not even have the opportunity to hear any formal preaching, much less be able to read the bible. Indeed, the only bible they will get to read is when they read the very actions of avowed Christians. Jesus himself never limited his preaching in synagogues during his time (I know of just one instance, correct me if I'm wrong), he illustrated his teachings by engaging the crowd, washing his disciples feet, curing the sick, expelling demons, and feeding the hungry. He practised what He preached.