Philippine President Duterte says Christian belief in Trinity is ‘silly’

Rappler ^ | 12/29/2018 | Mara Cepeda

[SeekAndFind]

MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte mocked the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, calling it “silly” on Saturday, December 29.

In a speech in Kidapawan City, Cotabato, the President attacked the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as he once again went into a tirade against priests and the Catholic Church.

"You’re already praying at one God, then you’re going to pray at these cursed saints. There’s only one God. There’s only one God, period. You cannot divide God into 3, that’s silly,” said the President.

Before attacking the Holy Trinity doctrine, Duterte said Jesus Christ is “unimpressive” because he had allowed himself to be nailed on the cross.

"Your God was nailed on the cross. How unimpressive. I’m God and you will crucify me? I’d tell them, ‘Lightning, finish all of them. Burn all the non-believers.'"

The passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is among the central doctrines of Christian faith, with Christians believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world from sin.

The President likewise belittled the belief in saints, whom he previously called as “fools” and “drunkards.”

"Saint Catalina, Saint Anne, Saint Thomas, Saint Sebastian, Saint Rodrigo, they’re nothing… I don’t know them. Look, those documents were written – if at all – 3,000 years ago. Why would they care about our lives now?"

"Who wrote about them? Who’s Saint Thomas? We don’t know who they are. That might even be a name for a cow or camel then"

The President – under whose term a string of priests have been murdered – had previously stirred controversy for calling God “stupid."

On December 6, Duterte even joked that bishops should be “killed” for supposedly doing nothing but criticizing his administration, which is waging a bloody war against drugs that has killed thousands.

[af_vet_1981]

Sorry bro. You didn’t explain anything.

One can explain and another can willfully refuse to understand, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to accept the explanations of the Messiah.

Sorry if you have no assurance of salvation,...

False

[af_vet_1981]

Granted, these guys say that they use the Bible for a source but after reading it multiple times, It’s simply not possible to get his opinions out of Biblical text. It’s just not there. He has to be making it up as he goes or he’s getting his ideas from somewhere/something else.

As is typical of restorationalist sects and cults; consider, for instance, the Armstrong faith community.

Armstrongism is a term, usually considered derisive,[1] used to refer to the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong while leader of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG).[2][3] His teachings are professed by him and his followers to be the restored true Gospel of the Bible. Armstrong said they were revealed to him by God during his study of the Bible.

[ealgeone]

>>Sorry if you have no assurance of salvation,...<<

False

Are you now saying Roman Catholics do have assurance of salvation?

[Elsie]

Ignore Jesus words at your peril.

Would it not be SAFER to quit the spinning of this subject and merely obey?

[Elsie]

... and merely obey?

I am quite sure your local priest's head will NOT explode if you fail to dishonor him by ignoring Jesus' clear command.

[af_vet_1981]

Then you’re going to have to explain what Jesus DID mean when he said those words, because you can’t reject them outright if the Lord said them.

Rather than perceiving it as an addition to the Law, with new commandments to ban honorifics for fathers, teachers, rabbis, masters (using the English Mister, Mr. would now be forbidden), but allowing Mother, Mistress, Rebbitzin, and all other feminine equivalents (since they were not banned and one is being literal ...) ... consider it is about:

Taking what belongs to God alone and attributing it to a man ...

And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so. And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

Second Kings, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses nine to fourteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
underline added for emphasis

Or consider the scrupulosity of banning those words and not plucking out one's eyes or cutting off one's hands ... the former promised no certain punishment while the latter warned the whole body would becast into hell.

Same Messiah, same Bible

Where is the constant spamming on FR calling for this?


Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses twenty seven to thirty,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[af_vet_1981]

Are you now saying Roman Catholics do have assurance of salvation?

One can have assurance of salvation if one does these things:
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Second Peter, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

The way you've posted this means the maintaining of a believer's salvation is incumbent upon what the believer does or does not do. The burden is now upon how "good" the believer is.

If that is the case, how much "good" does one have to do?

How does one know they've done enough?

How does one know they've done the right things?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You should read the Bible, the entire Bible.

Dude, I've read, studied and outlined the Scriptures in more than one language.

But it astounds me anyone would reject the simple words of Christ and then add to them and pretend they are true.

Sad!

[Luircin]

Now why exactly do Catholics apply the title to priests who are but man then?

[Mark17]

One can explain and another can willfully refuse to understand, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to accept the explanations of the Messiah.

I agree bro. One of us is going to be in deep kimchi. It’s just a matter of who. My question is, how can you and I read the same scriptures, and come away with interpretations that are completely different? How do you do this bro? One of us is refusing to understand the scripture. I will leave it to you to figure out who is in the dark. 😁 Read 1st Corinthians 2:14, and tell me what is your interpretation of it, but maybe you need a priest to interpret it for you. I do not.

Sorry if you have no assurance of salvation,...

False

Bro, stop the presses. All along, I have been told, that I cannot know if I am going to Heaven or Hell, until I kick the bucket. Are you telling me you have changed your mind in the last day or two, and are you NOW telling me, that it is ok to commit the sin of presumption, and have assurance of salvation? What changed bro? If you are now changing up, and if you now have assurance of salvation, it is truly a momentous occasion.
Hey folks. AF is now claiming to have assurance of salvation. AF, isn’t assurance of salvation a beautiful thing, unless you define it differently than I do. That is possible. Again, it might come down to reading the same verse, coming to a totally different interpretation. That seems to be the conundrum we find ourselves in. I know I have complete assurance of salvation. I am not yet convinced that you do. Set me straight bro, without randomly generating verses. 😁🤣😂🙃🛩😆💭😇

[Mark17]

Bro, get a grip. Herbert W and his WWCOG is another pernicious cult, with a capital CCC. It is not orthodox, in any way, shape or form. I don’t think you are up to snuff on your cults. So far, you have trotted out two evil cults as being faith based. Which cult will you drag out next? JWs, Mormonism, Christian Science, Zoroastrianism, Zen, or is there another cult, that I don’t know about, that you will claim is faith based, or whatever heck the term is that you use? 1st Corinthians 2:14 bro. Read it bro.

[ealgeone]

You do understand the importance of context in reading the Scriptures....right?

[Mark17]

Random verse generating again bro.

[Mark17]

You do understand the importance of context in reading the Scriptures....right?

I understand it perfectly, but do you know any cult member who does? 🤣👎

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“My question is, how can you and I read the same scriptures, and come away with interpretations that are completely different? How do you do this bro? “

This is exactly why no Roman Catholic should attempt to interpret Scripture.

They screw it up because they have not put in any work to study first, no work to learn the process, no training in tools.

The best they have is what they were told and then random verse generation.

[Mark17]

Yep.

[metmom]

I’m wondering just what Catholics think reading Scripture in context means.

They claim they do it, but then they take verses out of context.

I’m wondering if Catholicism has redefined what taking a verse in context actually means.

[metmom]

Did the Holy Spirit inspire them to do something wrong there (and many times elsewhere in their New Testament writings), when they wrote those inspired words, calling a man "father", again, and again, and again?

Matthew 23:1-12 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Context here is Jesus instructing His disciples not to use the term with religious leaders or take titles themselves as religious leaders.

In no way is He implying that a child should not call his male parent *Dad*.

Even if that case could be made, then why would Catholics excuse direct disobedience to a clear, concise command of Jesus just because *everyone is doing it*?

The reasoning of *Kids call their fathers *Father* therefore we can disobey Jesus and call our priests *Father*?

That's some serious cognitive dissonance.

[ealgeone]

I’m wondering just what Catholics think reading Scripture in context means. They claim they do it, but then they take verses out of context. I’m wondering if Catholicism has redefined what taking a verse in context actually means.

In one of these many discussions on this issue more than one Roman Catholic has asked what is so important about context.

I offer this from gotquestions.org.

Question: "Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context?"

Answer: It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context."

More at the link below.

https://www.gotquestions.org/context-Bible.html