By Jane Abao
This was one of the questions asked by an Italian journalist to Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina or Pope Francis to the Catholics who in effect said, “Obey your conscience. That is your guide to what is right and what is wrong.”
Not long after that, media blared that the Pope said, it’s okay not to believe in God if you have clean conscience. Courtney Coren wrote it for Newsmax summarizing La Repubblica, the broadsheet where Eugenio Scalfari wrote his questions.
The Pope has lately been voicing out statements that shocked the world, including saying that he believes in God but not in the Catholic god. The Pope also has been set to task by Bro. Eli Soriano who found the Pope’s “Letter to a Non-Believer” as containing unbiblical answers.
Soriano is the Presiding Minister of the Members Church of God International (MCGI) or Ang Dating Daan as locally known. The preacher was particularly pointing to Paragraph 20 of the letter as translated in English in http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html
The Pope’s letter to Scalfari that Vatican calls “non-believer,” said –
I now wish to address the three questions from your article of 7 August. I believe that in the first two questions, what interests you is to understand the attitude of the Church towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. Above all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and who do not seek faith. Given the premise, and this is fundamental, that the mercy of God is limitless for those who turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart, the issue for the unbeliever lies in obeying his or her conscience. There is sin, even for those who have no faith, when conscience is not followed. Listening to and obeying conscience means deciding in the face of what is understood to be good or evil. It is on the basis of this choice that the goodness or evil of our actions is determined.
Vatican documented the 2,500-word piece dated 4 September 2013 as “Letter to a Non-Believer: Pope Francis Responds to Dr. Eugenio Scalfari, Journalist of the Italian Newpaper La Repubblica.” Critiquing the response, Soriano said, among others, that the conscience of man is not a correct guide to the question of believing in God or not, because there are men whose consciences have been seared.
In Soriano’s blog in esoriano.wordpress.com titled, “The Greatest Fallacy of the Roman Catholic Church Ever,” the preacher also contested the Pope’s statement that Jesus is not spirit but man. There are parameters to truth where some truth are time-bound said the preacher. In other words, since the statement was said only recently, “Jesus is not spirit; he is man” can no longer be true.
Among the items that Bro. Eli pointed out is the Catholic’s false belief about Trinity where there are three persons of equal status. Not true, Bro. Eli said, because the son said in the Bible that, “the Father is greater than I,” and the Bible is an authority on this matter.
Searching for Truth
Searching for truth is one of the most novel pursuits of man today. But one needs to be serious about it because it has to do with an “end” question, “What will happen to me when I die? Will I be saved?”
The common denominator between Bro. Eli Soriano, Pope Francis and Scalfari is searching for truth, one could safely say – but not for apologists whose preference is placed on defending royalties, come what may. The man – not the message – is their focus.
To advance some more, those leading the churches need to be fully abreast of what is true. That in essence was the statement that Bro. Eli wanted to make when he was critiquing the Pope in teaching someone that Vatican called a non-believer. Hence the statement, “I am advising the Pope – if he accepts advises – to be more biblical in his pronouncements for the sake of more than a billion souls that look up to him as their leader.”
Bro. Eli is in fact fascinated with the new Pope as the latter proves to be cleansing the Roman Catholic Church – is in actuality creating its collapse – to come back to truth. This is what Soriano said in his blog.
We have members in Argentina who are former Catholics. I am thanking God that after the so-called ascension of the present Pope to the alleged throne of Peter, Argentines still strove to leave the Catholic Church and join us to be members of the Church of God International! I am happy for them in the sense that Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina caused the greatest collapse in the history of the Catholic Church when as present pope he pronounced that Jesus Christ is not a spirit but human!
Use of Reasoning, Discourses
The Word of God is the final arbiter above all things if we have to stick to truth. And for using truth to argue, to reason out, one must believe in truth himself. To stay in the domain of truth, one must, himself, serve truth. Would anyone in his right mind refute this?
At other times, fidelity with truth may even necessitate detaching oneself – like give up serving what one used to believe in as “truth.” This is not very far to imagine as in the resignation of popes.
Blessing from God
Despite truth not laid readily on the platter for man, he is blessed to have been given the wisdom and the opportunities to know truth. But it is not like lying down under an apple tree and waiting for the apple to drop to one’s mouth. A man of God that would preach God’s word must study, practice, and apply principles found in God’s book. Above all, he must be above reproach so that no matter how small, no matter how insignificant he is in the eyes of people, he is someone justified in God’s eyes to handle his words. Not everyone is worthy to do that.
A lazy man, for example, that refuses to read his Bible will not come to understand anything. A braggart cannot win in an argumentation or discourse without studying how to keep away from fallacies. A so-called priest who does nothing but shout out curses to anyone criticizing his beliefs is not a priest in the real sense. An apologist that uses materials other than the word of God for what is true is not a careful apologist.
If one practices more on tricks to mislead the audience with corrupt communication rather than finding out what is true, he is but a paid hack, a hired lackey to ensure status quo that someone may hold on to dear power. For example, the Pope’s pronouncement about Jesus not being a spirit but a man as the bone of contention should not lead to anywhere but there. Stay there and resolve that thing. It should not lead to yourself and your pompous biodata.
Recently, someone calling himself Lay Person Scripturist (?) tried to hi-jack a supposed work-in-progress, using the blog of “Splendor of the Church.” Bro. Eli Soriano was advising the Pope to be more biblical in his pronouncements in his blog in esoriano.wordpress.com. This so-called “scripturist” who obviously has no gifted knowledge about scriptures came forward to brag about his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. He was challenging Bro. Eli to prove his recommendation of the KJV as the better Bible. Someone’s pronouncements had suddenly metamorphosed into better Bible. Was that the issue? How did it come to that? This is clearly squid tactics at work!
Lay it on the Table
For anyone thirsting for truth, one should take extra care that one does not adhere to personalities but to God and his word. When Bro. Eli was finding issues with the pronouncements of Pope Francis, he was laying on the table these pronouncements for examination: firstly, about following your conscience as guide to belief or non-belief in God, and secondly, about Jesus being man and not spirit.
Why was he doing this? Preachers should continually study and examine information around just like other professions do. Bro. Eli said handling the words of God is most delicate and should not be simply toyed with by people who make business out of it. More so, use it for power.
What should be done now as proper, when things are on the table? To discuss these to find out the truth according to the final arbiter – the word of God.
So now, is conscience a proper guide to what is right and what is wrong? Is Jesus a man and not spirit? These are questions the world should be able to discuss – with saneness of mind, like adults who care for themselves and for others. These questions need answers, and it is but proper to discourse on them – especially with the Roman Catholic Church leaders. When Bro. Eli blogged about this, no one stood up for the Pope – in the proper way. Attempts were all spent at tearing down Bro. Eli as if the Pope would stand right if they do.
The Lackeys: Rise of Greenhorn Defenders
What happened was that someone in tow, identified only as “Lay Person Scripturist” posted “A Response” to Bro. Eli. That was quite expected. The problem was that he deflected from the issue and trained the discourse on himself and about what he knew about Greek and Hebrew. It was a decoy, all right, to draw the attention away from Pope Francis and his pronouncements.
The comments below the blogs called Bro. Eli all sorts of names. No one said anything against the Pope; neither against the personality of the blogger. The page belonged to the Catholics. “Lay Person Scripturist” is hardly a name. But since he was blogging on the blog of Padre Abe Arganiosa’s “Splendor,” he was deemed to be speaking for the Church – until his words betrayed him. Duane Yan is after all just a lackey. Is that his real name? No one knows for sure. He is not open about his identity.
As it is, Greenhorns or Tenderfoots should stay in their proper places and that is to study AND THINK– instead of trying to cover up for their elders. Until they are ready, it will not do any good as shown in this example. Instead of facing the situation, apologists for the Catholic Church only showed their lack of character.
Pope Francis can very well speak for himself. The Bishops of the RCC can speak for their beliefs and defend them instead of a lackey doing it. This early, the corrupted thinking of the “scripturist” seems to say that covering up for a leader is preferable to searching for truth. That is heroism to him.
Duane Yan’s Fallacies
Google is everybody’s friend. That’s how we came to know the full name of this so-called Scripturist – if that is really his true name. Does Duane Yan or Lay Person Scripturist live scriptures? Read scriptures? Study scriptures? A scripturist is defined as one who is strongly attached to, or versed in, the Scriptures, or who endeavors to regulate his life by them. That is what the dictionary says.
Duane has not shown anything about being a scripturist – through his demeanor or through the contents of his discourses. Anyhow, the following is an analysis of Duane’s first blog with all his fallacies. The statements in quotes are his, and the fallacies he committed are set in bold. The author takes the pleasure to comment as reaction to his fallacies.
A1) Ad Populum Argument. Duane opened his Blog 1, “A Response to the Attack of Eli Soriano against Pope Francis” with a claim –
“It was jealousy that forced Eli Soriano to come up with this article.”
That’s an appeal to the RCC mass. However, the claim for a jealous Soriano was not supported at all. He did not give evidence as to how Soriano was jealous (of the Pope?) and in what terms Soriano could be jealous. Instead, his subject was the Pope.
A2) Non Sequitor. Duane came up with the charities of Pope Francis as if to say that Soriano has no charities since he doesn’t speak about them, or that he does not know about them, or that the Pope does them. It doesn’t follow that because Duane is ignorant of the charities of Bro. Eli that there is no charity to speak of from the side of Bro. Eli. Or because the Pope does charities, then Bro. Eli has none.
A3) False Analogy
“The teachings of a preacher who uses verses cannot save people if he does not follow the will of God.”
There is no debate here; it is true for everyone. The comparison is a false analogy since it is being used as support where there is none to support. This supposed claim is not a claim at all, but Duane makes it appear to the audience that he is talking about Soriano, and that what he is saying is true.
“The real problem is the malicious thinking of the Leader of Ang Dating Daan who cannot explain the Hebrew Alphabet. The leader of this ADD does not know the Greek language.”
What was the issue? The pronouncements of Pope Francis. So why did it suddenly shift to Hebrew and Greek language? So that the so-called Catholic defender can cover up the errors found in the Pope’s words. No one came up but him – a “scripturist.”
One cannot run away from what is true and replace it with another. Your knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek alphabet cannot be the topic when no one brought it up.
A5) Strawperson Argument
“Now let us give Eli Soriano the Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1…..The question is does Soriano know Greek Grammatical Analysis?”
Was there a need for this? The contentions are on the pronouncements of Pope Francis. Why did it come to teaching Soriano of Greek Grammatical Analysis? You simply ignored Bro. Eli’s actual position and substituted your distorted, scheming misrepresented version of his position. Will teaching Greek Grammatical Analysis to Soriano show the way if Pope Francis is correct or not?
A6) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore this)
“They challenge the Pope since it is impossible for Him to give importance to these things. That is why Soriano does all these impossible things so the debate will not push through.”
Duane Yan, you are indeed egoistic! What debate are you talking about? You claim to have sent an email asking for a debate? Was there an answer? A letter or an email is said to have been received if there was a reply. And since Bro. Eli found fault in Pope Francis words, does that necessarily lead to a conclusion that debate with you is being avoided, and so the preacher needed to do that? How egoistic can you get!
Well, here’s something you have to know about Soriano: Bro. Eli attends to millions of people everyday aside from doing his own studies as preacher. So he has to divide his time for more important things. Not every email then gets a response. If there is none, the answer may be no or later. What is known is that Bro. Eli does not discourse with a lackey like you. What he likes is leader-for-leader since the leader knows best what doctrines his church carries. It is doctrines that are the meat of debates, not Hebrew or Greek language. You claim to be Lay Person, so stay with Lay Persons. The policy is that anyone wanting to debate with Bro. Eli must have authority from his leader.
What is a debate? Merriam Webster defines it as “a contention of words or arguments as a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.” Two matched sides, it says. At least, Duane should approximate if he has the mettle to deal with Bro. Eli. Knowing Hebrew and Greek does not guarantee that one is competent in reasoning, what more with measuring truth from different angles? You first blog already committed many fallacies. Is this a guarantee that you can handle a debate?
Duane’s second blog was more insulting. It was titled, “A Response to the Response of the Coward Leader of Ang Dating Daan.” Let us check again on his fallacies. The words enclosed in quotation marks are his. Fallacies he committed are set in bold.
B1) Distraction. By this time, Duane or whoever he is, has misled his audience to forget about Pope Francis and his pronouncements. Or so, it seems. In summary, Bro. Eli found issues in the Pope’s statements about following conscience to believe or not believe in God, and that Jesus is not spirit but man. So now, the focus is on Duane, himself, and his supreme knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. How did it jump from one topic to another? This Lay Person Scripturist inserted himself. What he did was distraction. He had tried to make the people forget about looking for truth – because now he had shifted the topic from Pope Francis’ unbiblical pronouncements (Argument of facts) – one that he could not answer – to a Coward Soriano (Argument of evaluation – personal). In sum, he was running away.
B2) Emotive language
“Soriano knows very well that I am a Lay Person. You are aware that I have contacted you last February 2014 via elisoriano.com. What is your purpose to claim that a person wrote this when you know that I was the one who challenged you to prove that the King Version is truthful to the Original Language? Are you just getting the attention of our members to show that you are fighting? You are a liar to show that a priest wrote this article.”
This person sees himself as the center of the world. When you are someone leading millions, you won’t have time to remember every email that comes along the way. The staff handles those emails first and then consults with management about time and priorities and other related concerns.
But this person who staunchly comes forward to do squid tactics looks at himself as the all-important person at the moment. Is what you call “lying” that hard when you cannot even come out with your real identity? That blog, “Splendor” has long been Abraham Arganiosa’s. You just popped up at the moment Pope Francis is being talked about.
The Pope doesn’t need anyone like you to cover for him. Already, you have the gall to call Bro. Eli as coward in all your impertinence and simplistic attitude in looking at scriptures. If you attach yourself to scriptures, you must make sure you do not soil its reputation by showing your brazen self-assurance that you know everything as to cover for the Pope! You could have at least waited for the Monsignors, or the bishops to do it and not you! For sure, they know better to respect people unlike your glory-seeking self.
Bro. Eli was not born yesterday. So many people would like to be associated with Bro. Eli through a debate – win or lose. Just having debated with him is already a feather on their cap. So do not think that Bro. Eli does not practice discernment with these people asking for debates. Your proposal alone as limiting the debate to a Hebrew language with no one understanding what is happening already marks you as a social climber that is hardly one looking for truth. Why should he waste time on you? Your tail is showing; tuck it in, please! Enough of your social-climbing at the expense of Bro. Eli.
ADDRESSING YOUR VIDEO: It now appears that you have forced your way into a Church locale for a hidden agenda. In your email that you said was sent last February 2014 (retrieved just this week), 1) You were asking for a debate; 2) You were asking that you may bring a video.
Since you were not even granted a debate, how come you have a video entering a church locale? What is your motive for doing that? To show that no one wanted to debate with you? Shallow trickster! Only your kind can be tricked into thinking that no one in the world can face a great Duane in a debate! It is easy to fool people, but no matter how many videos you post, a thinking mind will still examine the veracity of those posts.
Anyone wanting to know about truth is welcome in the Church locales of MCGI. Unless you went there for an evil purpose, you are most welcome. You need not present a video to create something that is not true.
B3) Ad Populum Argument
“Why will I not be proud of the Pope when he did many good things?”
The blogger is courting the audience to rally behind him, but there is no need for this. It is not an issue that Pope Francis did many good things. No one is fighting that. This is yet another proof that this fellow does not merit the time of Bro. Eli for a debate. It will just be a waste of time. He doesn’t know where to place himself arguing through blogs; what more in a formal discourse?
B4) Either-or Argument
“The question is do you really know Hebrew? If you are capable, then come out for an honorable debate.”
By this time, one can sense that this person is really pitiful. It’s either you know Hebrew or you are not honorable. It’s either you know Hebrew or you are a coward. It’s either you know Hebrew or nothing.
Bro. Eli is right in ignoring that email. This fellow has nothing between the ears and will only waste his precious time that can be used for others.
B5) Slippery Slope
“You will do everything that is impossible so the debate will not push through.”
Duane, if you had been a student, you may have learned that you cannot force your teacher to pass you; you have to show you merit her passing you. The same with anyone having the stature of Bro. Eli. He can afford to choose who are worth debating with. If there is no challenge and he can see that you are just going to waste his time talking about dictionaries that no one from the audience will understand, then create your own opponent. That proposal of yours is of the devil.
How can you claim that Bro. Eli would even waste time thinking about you and how to dodge you? Look at his debate records. In the space of four years from 1995-1998 for example, he had a record of 4 debates each year. Now, it is becoming less and less especially in foreign lands because these debates on video are all over the Internet. Challengers are withdrawing that there are times the tickets for Bro. Eli and his staff have been bought already and the venue paid for.
Oh, my! Bro. Eli doesn’t even know you exist and there you are, accusing him!
B6) Strawperson Argument
“I will repeat. I am challenging you to an honorable debate to prove that your highly recommended King James Version is truthful to the original language just like you said in the video.”
What Bro. Eli said in the video is not the same and identical as what Pope Francis said that “Jesus is not spirit but man.” That was one of the issues.
You are lost, young man! You can improve your ability to reason by familiarizing yourself with the kinds of fallacies that you have committed here. Improve your reasoning; formulate effective arguments and maybe someday, Bro. Eli can consider you as worthy to waste his time.
The meat of Apologetics work, as in others, should be in searching for truth and not swallowing up a load of unverified cache, and then fool the audience with corrupt evidence. No! There is no high pride that we need to cover up when it comes to truth. What Bro. Eli said about Pope Francis and his pronouncements were not yet answered. Unfortunately, you are not the right person to answer for them, given your performance.
What We Can Learn From the Comments
All is not lost if we can learn something from the load of comments. You don’t see Duane Yan defending what he said nor explaining himself. But you see the members of the Roman Catholic Church actively responding to commentaries or simply throwing stones. Some 90% of the comments were attacks on the person of Bro. Eli. Most were rehash of what the Iglesia ni Cristo would accuse the preacher of. Duane’s “A Response to the Attack of Eli Soriano against Pope Francis” reaped 260 comments as of August 10, 2014. His “Response to the Response of the Coward Leader of Ang Dating Daan” reaped 175 comments as of August 11, 2014.
From the two blogs of Duane aka Lay Person Scripturist, people called Bro. Eli names and threw him accusations not fit to see in print. Some even had usernames that are godly-sounding like “Ang Tunay na Kawan” (The True Sheepfold”) but the language is most foul. Against Catholics, the usual attacks are those that deal with idol worship but are ignored by them or replied to with a counter-attack. Idol worship of Catholics? Answer: Soriano is rapist, extortionist, plunderer, deceiver, scum of the earth. This has been the mantra of the Iglesia ni Cristo and is now in many forms being used by the Catholics against the preacher. That is because Bro. Eli up to now criticizes false beliefs during his Bible Expositions that are aired world-wide almost every week through satellite. Obviously, he cannot stop doing that because people ask him questions and he has to answer. Critiquing false beliefs is part and parcel of the work of a preacher of God. It helps in the propagation of truth.
What is to make of these comments? A Church leader can benefit from reading them. They are a show-window of what can be done. Management-wise, one can readily see how the church that he is leading has formed the persons from what they say. Has the church taught these people anything? If the church they are defending is good and true, how come the language is that filthy?
In the teachings of Bro. Eli, saying fool and shameless is not wrong if the person is really a fool or shameless. It is telling the truth and there is the need to change pointed out. This is not applied, however, by a brother to another. How about the Catholics? Looking at their comments, much can be said about Catholics: they don’t study their Bibles (“I was born a Catholic; I will die a Catholic”); they have not been taught respect. But happily, from the exchanges, one Catholic member was actively pushing for a debate to resolve issues (“I want to know who is lying; let’s have the debate”).
Here’s a proud Catholic named Alwin Bobis from the University of the Philippines talking – with a misplaced sense of martyrdom.
That’s how to be a Catholic! Non-afraid, courageous and above all, full of wisdom… Go and multiply! We are behind…. ALWAYS! (Posted 7:44 am, 8/8/2014 on Coward Leader).
If Catholics can bite bullets and powder in Nigeria, Egypt, Europe and in all persecuted-Christian land…. Eli Soriano is peanut (sic) in comparison…. For those who truly love Jesus, even martyrdom is a song. (Posted 7:47 am, 8/8/2014 on Coward Leader).
The most appropriate comment that goes along the line of thinking that we espouse comes from a John Cardenas from Systems Technology Institute. There is no pressure seen to defend his religion or his leader. He posted –
According to the Bible, there is a way to find out if the preacher is of God or not.
John 7: 17-18 (KJV)
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true and no unrighteousness is in him.
We need to weigh in the Biblical truths here, not the image of the Pope or even Bro. Eli. I am with you that this [sic] debate will be able to tell the people who is telling the truth. (Posted 11: am, 8/8/2014 on Attack Against Pope)
You can be sure John Cardenas learned this thing from Bro. Eli. This verse is frequently repeated during his Bible Expositions in the Q&A portion. It is also often discussed in Church gatherings. “The characteristics of a preacher of God” is one of the most discussed topics of Bro. Eli, either standing on its own or interspersed with other topics.
Authority to Speak
From the side of Bro. Eli, a Joemar San Jose, presumably a deacon, insisted on knowing about “authority to speak.” Who is authorized to speak for RCC? Is Duane authorized to speak for the whole of the RCC? Where can we find that authority spoken of? Where is it written? After a lengthy exchange (about 55 exchanges) with a certain Jay Pee of the RCC, it came out that a Bishop can give authority for his own Diocese – but up to that only. Duane cannot speak with authority for the whole of the RCC.
So what then is the use of jumping to a claim for debate if even his Bishop does not arm Duane with authority? Further, the purpose of a debate is finding out what is true. You would be a fool to debate using dead languages like Greek and Hebrew to find out truth if you can do it in the language of people hearing you.
But why do we use Greek and Hebrew dictionaries? To find out the intended meaning. But that is not all. You must know who is speaking so that you can gauge the meaning more closely.
Just because you know a handful of words in Hebrew or Greek does not give you the upper-hand. There is still God who guides his words and those he had appointed to use them. Therefore, the supremacy is not found in language.
To Be an Apologist
It is good to be an apologist but it depends on your apologetics. Merriam-Webster defines apologetics as “a branch of theology devoted to the defense of divine origin and authority of Christianity.” The term accordingly was first used circa 1733. This gives us an idea that certain truths on Christianity (Read Roman Catholic) have been in place as dogma as early as this period. Because they are dogma, a thinking mind should still check.
Experience reveals that some truths are time-bound. As new truths come in, the old ones found not working should go as wisdom reveals. Therefore, an apologist has to be open-minded and quick to check his facts. One need not swallow dogma – that is clear. The critical part is in having to defend someone you look up to as a leader when he makes a mistake. Did he indeed make one? Your task is to check, at the same time checking your thinking tools as well as your faith. There’s something we have to remember, however: Whoever is given the wisdom, to him we give the honor – to lead us into truth.
Everything an apologist does lies on his faith, but it does not mean blind faith. If you are sure your faith stands on solid ground, then your work is not that hard and there would be no inner conflicts. But if in your mind, the one you have to defend is in error, you are in for a quandary.
Debate on TV All That’s Needed
Duane Yan in “Splendor of the Church,” or whoever he is, said Bro. Eli is jealous and that is why he wrote that blog on the pronouncements of Pope Francis. The Pope really said those pronouncements as covered by media and Vatican documents.
No matter how Catholics pelt stones on Bro. Eli, it won’t change matters. Pope Francis said those words. He even said he believes in God but not in a Catholic God. It is because he has come upon new truths. Should there be things to settle, debate on TV is all we need.
ADDENDUM: There were two other responses that just came in. Abe Arganiosa’s post dated August 12, 2014 will be dealt first.
Every single word of the Catholic Priest Abe Arganiosa is in all capitals beginning with his title: “MAMA ELI SORIANO TOO COWARDLY IN HIS ALIBIS; REFUSES DEBATE CHALLENGES.” Aside from that, he topped it with a photo-shopped photo of Bro. Eli, presenting him as a clown.
For the many years that Abraham Arganiosa had been blogging, he has obviously not learned that any piece of writing one does is to persuade the reader of the truth of what one says. Therefore, there is what is called pathos or feelings of the audience. There is also ethos or the writer’s character as the readers see him as believable or not. More important, there is logos or proofs to confirm factual evidence. From what he had exemplified in his response, he has nothing of these three.
His post is a perfect example of a heart shown inside out. I pity this priest. Beginning with his filthy language, his cursing, and the things that make him laugh with great pleasure, I would not want any of my loved ones to come near this priest. Is this the one that should talk to you about God and his goodness?
Abe Arganiosa, the whole of your post is garbage! You do not even care what readers think of you; neither do you care if you are polluting people’s homes or not. And did you hit the point? You were talking about Bro. Eli shying away from debates and that is way off the mark. Was that the issue? There’s just one thing you need to know, perchance you can still wake up: You stink! That’s the truth of it! Priests as leaders should be examples and you are a poor one!
Just to tell the world that Pope Francis never makes mistakes, you yourself turn into a werewolf and bare your fang? That is what you do actually. It is not an intelligible way to handle arguments. You banner that Bro. Eli refused a debate challenge? When was that? And to whom is he a coward? As a priest, you have to be careful of your words. Did you banner that just to show that you have done something for Pope Francis?
If Bro. Eli is a coward, why does he have the guts to correct Pope Francis? That alone puts you on the defensive.
Secondly, from your title alone, Abe Arganiosa, you are already lying. You used emotive language to rally your people. If I call you Auntie Abe, fair enough? Auntie Abe, the Photo-shopping Catholic Priest Shouts on the Internet.
Finally, I will spare you your fallacies. You do not appear teachable anyway, and discussing them won’t help. Just be ethical on the internet. Do not post on all capitals because that means shouting. Then, how come you do not know that photoshopping, or specifically placing one’s head on someone’s body, is unethical and even criminal? You just did it to Bro. Eli and his people may complain.
Next came the August 12, 2014 post of Aloysius Kayiwa titled, REFUTING ELI SORIANO & HIS FELLOW FALSE PROPHETS ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. This is part of the responses to Bro. Eli Soriano in Splendor of the Church blog of the Roman Catholic Church that for a long time has been Arganiosa’s turf. The blog is now tagged as Catholic Apologetics.
Kayiwa is not a Filipino. He is a Ugandan, a former Pentecostal, and a correspondent of Splendor in Africa. He posted a very thick discourse but the thickness is deceiving. He dwelt on many topics that Bro. Eli did not mention. Written at the top is the following:
“Going back at the school of the Fathers: St. Athanasius battle; nicea and the defence of the apostolic faith – the figure of athanasIus at the centre of the fight against the arian heresy. A fundamental question for Chistian experience, yesterday as today. Deepening awareness of the trinity and refuting the false teachers Eli Soriano and Iglesia ni Manalo.”
Mr. Kayiwa, if you are an apologist, you must know what to do. Process this thick thing in order to respond properly to the issues set forth by Bro. Eli Soriano. Bulk cannot daunt nor fool those with thinking minds. They will still examine what you are saying despite your much padding. If you were my student, I would ask you to re-write, cut off the first nine pages, and begin on Page 10. That is where you began to talk about Bro. Eli.
Remove extraneous material and do not force Catholic materials which have no credibility to others because they are not scriptures. For example, what does Bro. Eli care about your St. Athanasius, his battle and Nicea? Are they in the Bible? The Iglesia ni Manalo is also not included here. That surely is not the way to argue. Go simple and attack the issues presented and that is the pronouncements of the Pope.
Like the others, you mention many things that are only true to you. I will just show you some of what you said:
In his first line, Soriano says that: “Now, if the son is equal to the Father and the Father is a spirit, it follows that the Son must also be a spirit!” This is a bogus statement confusing the nature of God and cancelling out Soriano. Notice how he confuses the Spirit to be the Father and the Son and not Himself. Soriano does not know what “equal” means and he confuses the nature of the one God and through misapplying and torturing Scriptures to support his erroneous views.
If Jesus is also a Spirit like His Father as Soriano says, why does the Spirit come on him during Baptism by John the Baptist?
Resolution for this is a televised debate. When you go, try to repeat these lines you wrote and let us see if you can win. I am not an expert on these things but I have already learned something from Bro. Eli that is not in you. You suffer from the negative effect of drinking from loads of lies. Just from believing all those so-called saints and making them your gods already deceive your minds. Your thinking is veiled whereas God’s truth is simple – for those who are not idol worshippers.
Another one –
So Soriano gets it wrong in confusing the Spirit as being the Father and the Son. The Spirit is God himself – God the Holy Spirit. When the Church asks us to bow our heads on hearing the words of John; ‘The Word became fresh [sic] and dwelt among us,’ She is calling us to pray homage to the goodness of God Who loves man so much as to become, Himself, the Messiah He had promised to the Hebrews – the Messiah who would be at one and same time, God and man.
This falls under the same thinking, the same error. Try to mention this again in the debate so that you can see why you are not correct. But this one below is what you really have to prove. Let us see who among you and Bro. Eli is the “charlatan pretending to be wise.” Prove yourself! Before you spread your heresies from Uganda to the Philippines, stand up and be measured!
This is your statement –
Enter in Soriano – a charlatan pretending to be wise
It is dishearting [sic] that although the Church Fathers sacrificed their lives to defend the fundamental Christian Faith against heretics, new false teachers, which the Scriptures warn us about, are coming up with wrong teachings. One of them is Eli Soriano, the founder of Ang Dating Daan cult aka Church of God International in the Philippines. Soriano has no shame in torturing, misapplying Scriptures and fooling people. In one of his latest articles in his blog, he accuses Pope Francis of calling Jesus a man by arguing with cynical statements that Jesus is a Spirit because God the Father is Spirit quoting John 4:24 which forces him to argue that –
“Now, if the son is equal to the Father and the Father is a spirit, it follows that the Son must also be a spirit!”
In reality, Soriano does not know what he is arguing against.
A ‘straw man’ argument defines a person’s point of view inaccurately, and then attacks the misrepresentation…
Aloysius Kayiwa, what you are accusing Bro. Eli of, is actually what you are doing! Your claims are based on a cache of your saints and relics. Those are not found in the Bible! If you agree to a debate, that “charlatan pretending to be wise” can be uncovered. I guarantee, that is you!
But have we forgotten what Bro. Eli was saying about Pope Francis? No! When you began your arguments with a human being (St. Athanasius) rather than God, you were building on shaky ground. Your understanding then is veiled.
Indeed, some people are not searching for truth nor are thinking anymore. Some prefer to drink from a cache of lies passed on from their forebears. But if you read the latest pronouncements of the Pope, they show that even he has not stopped thinking and is for changes. In the Pope’s interview with Eugenio Scalfari, La Repubblica’s founder (www.repubblica.it, 2013/10/01), the Pope was talking about how the Roman Catholic Church should change. In his exact words, he said there is “The leprosy of the papacy.” The Pope was using a metaphor, of course, but he is in effect saying that not everything is all right with the Roman Catholic Church.