Posted on 06/23/2018 11:34:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After ranting about the Catholic Church, the President of the Philippines now has a beef with the concept of 'original sin' in the Genesis creation story
MANILA, Philippines – After recent tirades against priests and the Church's "hypocrisy," Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte cursed God and called God "stupid" for the concept of "original sin" in the Bible's creation story.
Duterte, on Friday, June 22, began with retelling the story of Adam and Eve and how they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and thus brought original sin upon humankind.
"Kinain ni Adam (Adam ate it) then malice was born. Who is this stupid God? Istupido talaga itong putangina kung ganoon (That son of a bitch is stupid if that's the case)," said Duterte during a summit in Davao City.
"You created something perfect and then you think of an event that would tempt and destroy the quality of your work," he continued.
The President, a Catholic, said he finds it preposterous that babies should be born with original sin.
"Tsuk tsak lang 'yun ng nanay pati tatay mo wala ka pang kasali tapos ngayon may original sin ka. Tanginang klase – anong klaseng relihiyon 'yan? 'Yan ang hindi ko matanggap. What a stupid proposition," said an incensed Duterte.
(That was your mother and father's deed, you weren't born yet, but now you have original sin. What kind of religion is that? I can't accept it.)
Yet after this tirade, Duterte insists he still believes in a greater being. It's religion and institutions he does not trust.
"I believe there is a universal mind. But [to] what extent is the influence of the – I cannot picture him as a human being…But I really believe, i have this faith and abiding thing about – but don't believe in religion," he said.
Before his rant against God, Duterte had outraged Catholics when, during the launch of his presidential campaign over two years ago, he cursed Pope Francis for causing traffic in Manila.
Duterte also made similar remarks in his meeting with the Filipino community in South Korea on June 3. Also citing the story of Adam and Eve, Duterte said in South Korea, “Kung ’yan ang Diyos ng Katoliko, torpe ‘yan. Maghanap ka ng Diyos na tama.”
A week after Duterte made these comments in South Korea, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas wrote a stinging reflection about people cursing God. (READ: He is insane. He is possessed.)
“The list of cuss words against God is endless. God is still God and those who have cursed Him are now dust,” Villegas said in a reflection on June 10.
“When you spit upwards, your spit will return to your face. The more you spit at God, the more spit you bring to your face. It is the law of gravity. It is also the law of divine justice,” he added.
Villegas, former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, also urged Catholics to pray for people who teach them error.
“Dear children, as for those who dare to teach you error, pray for them and forgive them. They might be insane or possessed. They need God. They need your prayers and love and compassion,” said Villegas.
After fierce criticism for his threats against priests amidst recent killings of clergymen, Duterte insisted in a speech that he "respects" the Church.
Let's just say Duterte won't be making any visits to Poland anytime soon.
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. (Proverbs 10:18)
Infants as not born culpable of sin, and will not be condemned for what they are not responsible for, and their angels behold the face of God.
But the ability to choose is meaningless unless there is something to choose btwn. And in the case of opposites, the choice reveals the heart of the chooser.
Perhaps deceived and damned Duterte would rather God create robots, or not let people choose him as president, but the only wise God says,
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)
Duterte can expect to soon die, and Rome will likely give him a grand funeral and call him one of her sons, but unless he comes to God with a contrite repentant heart, and cast all your faith/dependence upon the risen Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, to save him as a Hell-bound sinner by His sinless shed blood, then he will sadly hear, “ I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:23)
The odds are very good that without manifest repentance he will be given a ecclesiastical RC funeral, and be called a son of The Church, just as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual RC pols have.
You can attempt your damage control tactics but we have been thru that before.
(Reading between your lines, attributing an intended meaning:) "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar Duterte(?)."
(Shakespeare's quotation of Marc Antony in Julius Caesar, repurposed)
. . . but unless he comes to God with a contrite repentant heart, and cast all your faith/dependence upon the risen Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, to save him as a Hell-bound sinner by His sinless shed blood, then he will sadly hear, “ I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:23)
That would not be a logical conclusion any more than the Catholic claim that since they (claim to) gave us the whole Bible then they are the infallible interpreters of it.
In this case both are wrong. While David said that "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," (Psa 51:5) Moses said (regarding judicial punishment) "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin," (Deuteronomy 24:16) And others affirmed likewise. (2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
And there is a (varying) age of accountability, "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16; Deuteronomy 1:39 )
And Scripture also only teaches that sinners will be judged according to what they did (relative to light and grace given) not others.
However, that man inherits a sinful nature is clear:
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)
The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. (Proverbs 29:15)
Therefore while dedication of infants to the service of the Lord is Scriptural, (1 Samuel 1:24-28) infant baptism of them is nowhere manifest despite baptism (which flows from the principal of water of purification) being commanded and exampled, and the critical importance of paedobaptism in Catholicism.
“At the same time that I was given back my mind, I was also given back my majesty and splendor, making my kingdom shine. All the leaders and important people came looking for me. I was reestablished as king in my kingdom and became greater than ever. And that’s why I’m singing—I, Nebuchadnezzar—singing and praising the King of Heaven:
There’s a Duturte fan club here too?
Original sin is a Catholic doctrine. Lutheran/Calvinistic Protestants believe in something called "total depravity" that makes original sin seem like a wimp. Meanwhile, the ancient eastern and oriental churches don't believe in original sin at all. They claim it's an invention of the "west."
Incidentally, this is what made me a Noahide. I was reading an Eastern Orthodox booklet a friend had lent me, and the author was simply ranting and railing about the "arch-heretic Augustine" and the "pagan Greek" doctrine of original sin. He said the true doctrine of human nature is taught in the Talmud. Yes, he actually said that! I had been noticing as I went from Protestant to Catholic to Orthodox that with each one human nature was less messed up (an Orthodox priest told me there was no difference between me sitting there talking to him and Adam in the Garden!) What is the purpose of chrstianity or the crucifixion of there was nothing wrong with us to begin with? We already had a religion of morality and ritual, and it certainly didn't need to be replaced by another one. I concluded immediately that what wasn't broke didn't need fixin'.
Even in His punishment, God is full of grace. Adam and Eve were to live forever on Earth. But, God did not condemn them to eternity without Him.
BTW - Calling God a son of a bitch? I’m thinking his theology is a bit flawed.
Were those men raped by the women???
GMTA! ;o)
So, you have never sinned?
The President, a Catholic, said he finds it preposterous that babies should be born with original sin.
It does not at imply culpability of personal guilt on the part of any infant, anywhere, at any time.
Duterte seems ignorant of these facts.
Since Duterte said two years ago “I believe in one god, Allah,” I doubt he would even permit, via advance directives, a Catholic funeral Mass.
Broadbrush much MDO? I showed your post to my Filipina wife. I can’t repeat what she said, but she does not agree with you. The men are experts at bola bola, and the women generally do not rape the men.
It's not an unfair broadbrush accusation, but simply a biological reality, that men are involved in every pregnancy. You can't get pregnant without the male input. I very much doubt your wife would disagree with that.
But---OMG --- waitaminnit. Is it possible you thought that this sentence
"What REALLY get me is that the Filipino women get themselves pregnant, then irrationally implicate men!"
... was to be taken literally?
((((Sigh.)))
It's meant as mockery of the dumb idea that with reference to pregnancy, the man is a Dindu Nuffin.
Where in the flippin' blazes did you get the idea that I was saying I never sinned??? One of my main problems with the ancient churches during my search was that they didn't seem to think we were that messed up. Catholicism (not I) says that human nature was merely "wounded" by original sin (I grew up with Innate Total Depravity!). I explicitly said that since historical chrstianity acknowledged the teachings on human nature of the Talmud why in the name of all that's reasonable invent a new religion when there already was one?
Until Martin Luther chrstians lived their entire lives walking a tightrope over hell. There was no "assurance of salvation," no "eternal security," or any such thing. I feel like I'm telling a little kid there's no Santa Claus when I point out that Protestantism did not exist in the ancient chrstian world. All of ancient chrstianity--from Rome to Persia to India to Ethiopia--is about liturgies, sacraments, moral codes, and monasticism. The idea that Constantine is responsible for all that is ludicrous.
The only version of chrstianity that makes sense is inauthentic and ahistorical. Actual historic chrstianity replaced the Torah's morality and ritual with another morality and ritual, then threw a crucifixion on top of it and screamed about how the Jews had committed "the greatest crime in history" (I always thought he was vicariously eternally damned by G-d in our place, but this is another "invention").
Finally (and I know this is useless since you refuse to even think about it), the two quotes you offer are a perfect example of chrstian error on this subject. You believe they are from "the same identical bible" but they most assuredly are not. Hebrews says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Leviticus does not say that. It says that it is forbidden to eat blood because when an offering is made it is the blood (rather than the other parts) of the animal that makes atonement. This is not the same thing as saying "without blood there is no forgiveness of sin." You probably won't see it because you begin with an a priori belief in the "new testament." If you did not have that a prior belief you would see the difference.
I have devoted years on this forum to defending Fundamentalist Protestants and refuting their critics. I was broken hearted to learn the truth, but it's still the truth. Unless someone invents a time machine so they can go back and insert Protestantism into chrstianity's beginnings the real thing will be what it always was until 1517.
Un frikkin’ believable !
Yes, "original sin" really is quite wimpy and disappointing compared to innate total depravity. But the Catholic Church had to have an excuse to "replace" the previously-existing G-d authored religion with something else. Total depravity implies the futility of all human action and effort. So they came up with something that fit their needs just right: man had fallen enough that the already existing G-d authored religion couldn't save him, but the new one would.
Given the choice between a Biblical and a post-Biblical moral code/ceremonial, I choose the Biblical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.