One last thing: Those that preach tolerance are actually the most intolerant when they are in power. Just look at what atheist have done in the US. They are having crosses removed because it offends them. They want to strike out the name of God in federal buildings and even in the US currency. Bobby Cabral
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Possible SPAM]:Re: FW: To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 1:27 PM Cesar, I really applaud you in your courage and your exceptional knack in telling it like it is to any of your colleauges, cronies from school and boyhood friends as well and still come out of it smelling like a rose. Its hard to fathom why the sheer contradictions, the absurdities, the preposterousness, and the outrageousness that have been pointed out in the scriptures and in the adherents' beliefs don't seem to bestir the rank and file religionists among your confreres to perhaps re-examine them critically. An appeal to reason more often than not is met by less than cordial retort. In fact, it is looked upon as an heretical, insolent assault on their religion's redoubt. It seems obvious that rationalism is totally alien to their religion, to be used only by atheists to knock it down. They seem to feel so smug about the certainty of their monopoly on morality. You may be a secular person or an atheist or outside religion by choice, but since you don't worship any particular God, "you answer to no one" and hence you are depraved and free to "rape, kill" and what have you. I guess having been in the convent for 300 years, there are certain things that are just very difficult to undo in a short span of time. Stay steadfast, my friend, and remain true to yourself and to your conscience. Your task is made out for you. I am very confident rationalism triumphs in the end. ......Cesar P. -----Original Message----- From: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 8:11 am Subject: Re: [Possible SPAM]:Re: FW: Hi David, You are a worthy debate opponent. You are the only one in CRGP who takes my arguments, slices them and argues against them point by counterpoint. Rather than going into a detailed dissection of your arguments, know that I am not a fan of the Old Testament. I reject the Bible's account of Creation. I do not believe in Original Sin because I do not believe that a neanderthal or a cro-magnon man or woman was capable of committing sin in my name tens of thousands of years ago. I do not believe in the story of Job because I do not think that God would be so capricious as to kill all of Job's relatives, deprive him of his house, his treasure and everything he owned just because God wanted to win a bet with the devil. I do not believe that God would test Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac as sacrificial lamb to prove Abraham's faith. I do not believe that we should pluck our eyes out, or cut off our hands if we know that our eyes and hands are an occasion of sin. I do not believe that it is OK to kill a son because the son has been disobedient. Jesus, if I read the New Testament correctly, debunked many of the teachings of the Old Testament. Jesus, in fact, preached that God is merciful and just, not wrathful, vengeful and capricious. The Old Testament God is in fact similar in respects to the pagan God Zeus and his brother Uranus, which suggests that the ancient Jewish people were heavily influenced by the prevailing religious beliefs in the mediterranean at the time. The important thing to remember is that prayer is a private one-on-one with God. It is not an instrument for political and social change in the Philippines or any other country. Cesar On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Laurel,David,MAKATI,CORPORATE AFFAIRS <[email protected]> wrote: Perhaps there is no conflict between the ongoing discussions and the posture of this group, religion and good governance will be partners in the future... Modern era: separation of religion from government In the modern era, the separation of religion from government has been a doctrine often repeated and as often ignored, bypassed, honored in the breach. That separation was in turn a subhead of the distinction between "private" and "public," a dotted line fading fast as governments farm out to private entities a growing proportion of the public business, and private organizations play a more muscled part in making public policy. Transmodern: "religion" will play a weightier role In the postmodern era, however it comes to be described, we already use the word "governance" to suggest that the organized functions required for a people to govern themselves go far beyond what "governments" can effectively fund or cause to happen. Within this framework, it now seems overwhelmingly likely that "religion" (defined as "organized spirituality") will play a weightier role in governance -- and indeed, that individual spirituality will be an increasingly important element of leadership in every domain. "We, for our part, are products of a secular industrial society. But we realize that we can no longer discuss political futures without also discussing questions of meaning, spirituality, and cultural identity. We are therefore asking you to join us in a serious effort to project mutually advantageous futures for our societies. In order to do this, we will all have to set aside our superiority complexes, our intolerances whether based on scientific rationalism or on spiritual tradition, and our dreams of having our views prevail in the whole world." Copyright 1988 by Harlan Cleveland and Mark Luyckx From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Antonio Henares Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Possible SPAM]:Re: FW: Hello Guys! I thought we agreed to limit avid discussions like these to direct emails and not through the email group. Please do so as you are taking up a lot of our inbox space. Thanks and happy private discussions. Tony Henares --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Laurel,David,MAKATI,CORPORATE AFFAIRS <[email protected]> wrote: From: Laurel,David,MAKATI,CORPORATE AFFAIRS <[email protected]> Subject: FW: To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 3:50 PM "let me remind you that in Natural Theology that we all studied at La Salle, we learned of St. Thomas Acquinas' attributes of God. God, according to St. Thomas, is immutable, perfect, all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, can see the past, present and future all at once because He lives in the everlasting present, etc. If God is immutable (unchanging) he does not go from being unpleased to pleased. He is simply pleased all the time.???? Where did this come from? Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased. Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him [His beloved Son v.13] should all the fulness dwell; Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1 John 3:22 Beloved, if (our) hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in God and receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him Your version of natural theology has taught you that God is not a compassionate God, but merely a logical one, this is half-baked according to Aquinas himself: "Consequently, for a Christian to engage in Natural Theology, thereby claiming that it is possible to prove that God exists and is one, does not diminish the fact that it is still necessary to believe (with religious faith) in Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the Forgiveness of Sins. By the same token, the acceptance of the conclusions of Natural Theology does not entail or necessitate religious faith. In fact, Aquinas generally believed that the prospects were pretty poor for unaided human reason to achieve very much success even in its own sphere of Natural Theology.- Thomistic Natural Theology "That more or less denies the possibility of a wrathful and vengeful God that we see in the Old Testament, a God who would punish Job, kill his loved ones, turn him into a pauper in order to prove Job's faith to the devil." Cesar, are you therefore implying that you do not believe in the Old Testament ? Or do you allude the old testament as merely "symbolic"? What about Jonah 3:4-10 "God spared the Ninevites because He saw their work and acts of repentance". You also conveniently gloss over Gen. 18:16-22. However, since you impliedly prefer the New Testament, Romans 8:34 states "Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us". what about Matthew 25:31-46? What does your logic deduce the intercession to be all about? Speaking about God's wrath in the New Testament: Colossians 3:6 (New American Standard Bible) "For it is because of these things that (A)the wrath of God will come [a]upon the sons of disobedience" So there you have it, if we disobey, he gets angry, plain as day. Your theology also leaves no room for Jesus Christ's redemptive role. Ever heard of God's forgiveness? How do you reconcile forgiveness and immutability? God's justice and mercy? There is a difference between praying to God for guidance and praying for God to intercede and solve the country's problems. What is the difference from God's viewpoint? "He doesn't pray, however, for God to solve Pampanga's problems" How do you know this? Do you base this conclusion on the single event when you were present? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cesar Lumba Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: David, I saw Among Ed in person, in conference and at work. He was talking to people, listening to them, listening to our group. He was looking for solutions to Pampanga's many problems. Not once did he ask us to hold hands an pray, even though he knew we were a group made up of La Sallites and Ateneans. He prays in private, but of course. And he prays for guidance. He believes that God walks with him. He doesn't pray, however, for God to solve Pampanga's problems. There is a difference between praying to God for guidance and praying for God to intercede and solve the country's problems. Father Reuter's exhortation to Filipinos is the latter kind. If Filipinos are praying hard, they should pray harder so that God will intercede and help Filipinos. I guess there is nothing wrong with more prayers, but please, Father Reuter, do not suggest that prayer is an instrument of social change. As CRGP members, we must think and act that the outcome of all our exertions is dependent on how hard we work and how focused we are in our work. Supernatural events, like God coming down and helping us, no matter how hard we pray, simply do not occur in our daily lives. As far as your request that I cite emprirical proof of God's attributes of immutability and perfection, let me remind you that in Natural Theology that we all studied at La Salle, we learned of St. Thomas Acquinas' attributes of God. God, according to St. Thomas, is immutable, perfect, all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, can see the past, present and future all at once because He lives in the everlasting present, etc. If God is immutable (unchanging) he does not go from being unpleased to pleased. He is simply pleased all the time. That more or less denies the possibility of a wrathful and vengeful God that we see in the Old Testament, a God who would punish Job, kill his loved ones, turn him into a pauper in order to prove Job's faith to the devil. Since God is already perfect and enjoying perfect happiness, to say that He would be swayed by prayers is to deduce that he can go from a condition of being displeased or not pleased (neutral) to pleased. That just doesn't happen in the case of God. St. Thomas Acquinas' Catholicism is in the Natural Theology texts that we all studied at La Salle. I am an Acquinian and so is Cesar Paulin. Cesar A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
