Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Manny Amador
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Case closed. No matter how much the Church-haters try to obfuscate the truth, they cannot hide this plain and simple fact of history.
God bless!
--
Please sign the online petition supporting the pro-life bill (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/
--[Manny Amador]------------------------------------[ma...@phnix.net]--
Alternative Information and Opinions at mamador.wordpress.com
Member: Pro-Life Philippines (http://www.prolife.org.ph)
--[Ang Kapatiran Party]------------[http://www.angkapatiranparty.org]--
MANUEL almario
If Rizal had written a retraction two years before his execution, as you claimed (quoting from Austin Craig), how come the Jesuits moved heaven and hell to get a retraction from Rizal hours before his death? All they had to do was to release his earlier retraction. According to Father Balaguer, Rizal signed the retraction prepared by Father Pio Pi Pi at 11:30 p.m. on Dec. 29 at Fort Santiago. Here is what Jose Baron Fernandez, biographer of Rizal, wrote:
"At 10:00 o'clock that night (Dec. 29), according to Father Balaguer's account, he sat with Rizal and began reading the formula for the rectraction, but Rizal almost immediately rejected it allegedly saying that the style did not rhyme with his own and accepting the simpler draft prepared by Father Po Pi. He was supposed to write it in his own handwriting. At 11:30, according to Balaguer, he signed it....
"But, surprisingly, Balaguer did not make an official report of the retraction, although Matraix, the correspondent of Heraldo de Madrid, cabled a few minute after midnight, quoting the only possible source of such information, that 'Rizal will retract his errors, and will confess before contracting marriage."
The alleged retraction was never published until it was found in 1935, 39 years after the execution, in the archives of Madrid. Why was it not released immediately after his death, especially since the Jesuits have apparently already told Matraix that he would sign a retraction? At any rate, Fernandez and Austin Coates and other biographers of Rizal did not believe that Rizal had signed a retraction. Fernandez said it was "repugnant and contrary to logic that a man who was so zealous and careful about his public and private life .. a man who was to meet death as a sacrifice for love of country -- should so consciously and completely transformed as to readily relinquish his life's principles."
Stop defaming our hero.
Manny Almario
From: Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
To: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
Cc: poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; lorenzog...@gmail.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 5:40:18 PM
Subject: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Manny Amador
If Rizal had written a retraction two years before his execution, as you claimed (quoting from Austin Craig), how come the Jesuits moved heaven and hell to get a retraction from Rizal hours before his death?
The answer is in the very same text that I quoted earlier:
It is time you remove your blinders brought about by your hatred of the Church and accept the historical facts as they are. Rizal retracted, and his retractions were published. There were also witnesses to the earlier retraction two years before his execution.
Stop lying about our hero to suit your prejudiced agenda.
God bless!
Please sign the online petition supporting the pro-life bill (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/
--[Manny Amador]------------------------------------[ma...@phnix.net]--
Alternative Information and Opinions at mamador.wordpress.com
Member: Pro-Life Philippines (http://www.prolife.org.ph)
Lorenzo Guerrero
Dear Manny Almario,
In another communication related to this topic, you have called Leon Ma. Guerrero a traitor for writing in his book, "The First Filipino" that Jose Rizal retracted, based on evidence. I will not go into the long list of Mr. Guerrero's numerous accomplishments and awards,including the prestigious and highest award in the Country, The "Mabini" medal. Guerrero was one of the greatest statesmen and foremost Nationalists this Country has ever had. There are numerous books, articles, and writings on him, so I will forego mentioning all these. Anyone interested can look this up in any book related to Philippine History. He was many things in his lifetime, a traitor definitely not!
Guerrero's book, "The First Filipino" was awarded the first prize in the Rizal biography contest held under the auspices of the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission in 1961. If you do not agree with what Guerrero has written, you are most welcome to write your own version of Jose Rizal's life and death, or dwell entirely on his retraction, as that would suit you. You might even get an award for that! However, wrongly advising your nephew on the evils of that book is somewhat odious and frankly, shameful. Why not let him discover for himself, if Guerrero is wrong or right. He should be intelligent enough. In my opinion, evidence to the effect of the retraction would be enough, as is usually the case for those who believe in Science, present company excluded!
You made mention of the book of Austin Coates as being superior,, due to the fact, of course, that he went along with the claim of the non-retraction. Well, is it surprising that Austin Coates was a Mason and a "Freethinker"!!! His book is, by the way, not a new book, it's an old one and written in the past when being a mason and a Freethinker was something exciting and glamorous! These days of course, everyone is! Good book, but quite biased. If you want a better biography and analysis of Jose Rizal and his novels, go and read the excellent book, "Rizal, through a Glass, Darkly" by Fr. Javier De Pedro. But of course, being written by a priest, it would be considered junk to you!
Cheers,
Peewee Guerrero
A M Gonzalez
| But of course, being written by a priest, it would be considered junk to you! |
| This is interesting really Peewee. The pope's a priest too and if you ask Danding, he swears Ratzinger to have said: “What our criminal priests do… what our pedophile priests do to little boys is no one’s business but ours. So keep it secret. Hide our pedophiles from the eyes of the prying public”. When as a Cardinal, Ratzinger actually said: "All courts of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are required to observe the canons on crimes and punishments as well as the criminal trial, respectively of both codes, along with special rules to be issued individually by the Congregation for the doctrine of faith and apply throughout." So Peewee, what's junk to you? Merry Christmas Manolo --- On Tue, 12/28/10, Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Manny Amador
In another communication related to this topic, you have called Leon Ma. Guerrero a traitor for writing in his book, "The First Filipino" that Jose Rizal retracted, based on evidence. I will not go into the long list of Mr. Guerrero's numerous accomplishments and awards,including the prestigious and highest award in the Country, The "Mabini" medal. Guerrero was one of the greatest statesmen and foremost Nationalists this Country has ever had. There are numerous books, articles, and writings on him, so I will forego mentioning all these. Anyone interested can look this up in any book related to Philippine History. He was many things in his lifetime, a traitor definitely not!
I agree with you! Thank you for this information!
It is interesting how Mr. Manuel Almario totally ignores all these other facts when he unjustly calls Mr. Leon Ma. Guerrero a traitor for simpy disagreeing with his own (and very prejudiced) opinion on Rizal's Retraction. The evidence shows that the award-winning author Mr. Guerrero has done the painstaking research required and has far more credibility than Almario or Poch ever will have.
We should also remember that Mr. Leon Ma. Guerrero's work is backed by the award given by the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission. Poch and Almario, on the other hand, are just left patting each others' behinds.
God bless!
poch suzara
Unfortunately, even the Knights of Rizal would never stand up to defend and protect the character and reputation of Rizal as a courageous free thinker. After all these knights are first Catholics ready and willing to defend first their faith in a lot of religious hogwash as taught to them to believe in our schools, colleges, and universities.
Would you people believe that even the Commander in Chief of the Knights of Rizal carry with him to his office daily - not the copy of the Noli and Fili but the silly holy bible???
Poch Suzara
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 18:34:55
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Eduardo Gimenez
To Peewee and Gabby,
This is my take on the issue of Leon Ma. Guerrero. Whether or not our great national hero Jose Rizal retracted, isn’t to me an issue that could diminish the overall greatness of this other great Filipino intellectual. My opinion is clear on this issue. Rizal did not retract. He died shot by a Spanish firing squad. My grandfather, recently returned from his studies in Europe, was placed in uniform by the Spanish authorities and was standing guard as a “voluntario” at the Luneta almost directly to Rizal’s side when he was shot. Rizal had neither a rosary nor a scapular with him. What he did attest was this… and I am paraphrasing him: “The execution of Rizal turned the sentiments of almost every Spanish in the Philippines against their own government. There was a very large resentment against the Spanish government and the church for having committed such an atrocity”.
The church’s power to mangle the truth is of historic proportions. Leon Ma. Guerrero wrote what he wrote because the evidence before him was clearly as his narrative had expressed it. That he was misled on this one instance does not diminish the greatness of this other Filipino intellectual. Were Rizal alive, he would be the first to stand in defense of Leon Ma. Guerrero’s inalienable right to err. He would dispute with every fiber of his being the tarnishing of such a great life filled with great works that begot such a great family following the same intellectual traditions. This family has produced other illustrious academicians and intellectuals including the redoubtable Carmen Guerrero Nakpil and that other remarkable lady of history, Gemma Cruz Araneta.
A historian friend of mine from Maine once remarked to me that history has in its bosom enough support for virtually every position on virtually every issue. Researchers and historians know this is true. We as consumers of history do not. We tend to be very harsh with historians who present views that differ from ours. Rizal’s place in history is well established. He is one of history’s greatest sacrificial figures. Whether or not there were errors in Leon Ma. Guerrero’s rendering of Rizal’s life will not touch one whit the greatness of Rizal. But I for one will refrain to use the likelihood of one error to tarnish the greatness of another superb Filipino. I would rather honor our great ones than to try to bring them down notch by notch.
Love to all,
Danding
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum Gagum: When as a Cardinal, Ratzinger actually said:
"All courts of the Latin
Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are required to observe the canons on
crimes and punishments as well as the criminal trial, respectively of
both codes, along with special rules to be issued individually by the
Congregation for the doctrine of faith and apply throughout."
Response: That is Manolo’s personal translation from the Italian translation of the original Latin. Being neither an expert in translations nor a speaker of either Latin or Italian, any Manolum Gagum translation is bound to be wrong as this one clearly is. Below is the official Catholic Church English translation (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm) .
There are no references whatsoever in the official English translation to crimes or punishments or criminal trials, etc. Ratzinger makes it clear with this 2001 letter that he wanted only “tribunals of the Latin and Eastern churches who are bound to observe canon law (not criminal law). And in the end he orders that all such cases be kept in Pontifical Secret. Meaning: “Don’t tell the legal authorities.”
All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic
churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on
the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which
are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an
individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.
“Penal Process” (Processu Poenali) is not the same as “Criminal Trial” as you insist in your wrong translation. Latin has very clear words for “crime” and “criminal” and those are “Crimen” and “Criminalem”.
Here is the original Latin text to the paragraph Manolum Gagum keeps mistranslating. Neither “crimen” nor “ciminalem” show up in the Latin text. They appear in your stupid translation, obviously picked up from your sobaco.
Danding
A M Gonzalez
| Bwahahahahaha |
Translate the Italian wherever you like. It still will say, Cardinal Ratzinger actually said: "All courts of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are required to observe the canons on crimes and punishments as well as the criminal trial, respectively of both codes, along with special rules to be issued individually by the Congregation for the doctrine of faith and apply throughout." |
| Bwahahahahahaha Manolo --- On Tue, 12/28/10, Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com> wrote: |
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum: Translate the Italian wherever you like.
Response: You know nothing about Italian. You don’t know the language, the culture, the business, etc. You couldn’t even get an Italian gelato company with no business in Spain to give you representation for their line in Spain. You couldn’t even write a proper English letter to them. You had to ask me to write it for you. If you can’t get a little Italian company that does nothing in your backyard to give you the representation for you to sell in your backyard, it doesn’t speak well for your ability to persuade anyone. The problem is you have a great ability to quickly reveal to all those around you that you are completely unable to do critical thinking.
A M Gonzalez
| Red herring Danding. You commit another one of your typical logical fallacies. What does an Italian gelato company have to do with what Cardinal Ratzinger said? Is this the prowess of your critical thinking? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha |
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum: What does an Italian gelato company have to do with what Cardinal Ratzinger said?
Response: It has everything to do as you are selling yourself as an expert on Italian. When in fact you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground on ANYTHING Italian. They don’t even trust you enough to sell their gelato in Spain.
MANUEL almario
You claim "Rizal retracted, and his retractions were published." When were they published? There was only one "retraction" that was published, and that was the document allegedly found 39 years after Rizal's death in the archives of Madrid. Clearly your sources were lying.
Stop maligning our hero.
Manny Almario
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; lorenzog...@gmail.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:33:33 PM
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
MANUEL almario
Being a Guerrero, I cannot blame you for coming to the defense of Leon Ma. Guerrero. I am not unaware of his many accomplishments, including his being an excellent writer, a "nationalist" by reputation, a seasoned diplomat and the many literary and government awards that he had received. He posed as a renaissance man. It is said he wrote and broadcast the piece, "Bataan has fallen," attributed to Carlos P. Romulo. He was also an aide of President Laurel during the Japanese occupation, and was among the so-called top Filipino collaborators taken to Japan by the Japanese authorities to escape the American "liberators". I think he was among those accused of treason but later on amnestied.
Please understand that I have nothing against the Filipino officials who collaborated with the Japanese. Many of them were honorable men, like Recto and Laurel, who genuinely sought to protect the Filipino people against Japanese atrocities and to advance genuine Philippine independence. I had occasion in the 60s to interview "Leonie" for my magazine, the Weekly Graphic, especially when the Sabah issue was flaring. He was then, I think, undersecretary of foreign affairs. I also admired him for championing "Asia for the Asians" policy, along with Recto, then the secretary of foreign affairs under Garcia. But, unlike Recto, Guerrero waffled when it came to Rizal. It was Recto and Laurel who pushed the Rizal bill in the late '50s, and rescued Rizal from the obscurity, obfuscation and calumny that the Church and the traditional elite had consigned him.
Guerrero also continued to serve under the Marcos dictatorship, even though it became clear that Marcos was not only a corrupt despot who sought to serve only his personal and family interests, but also totally subservient to American foreign policy and dictation. Leonie's sister, Chitang, also an accomplished writer and renowned columnist on Filipino culture, was one of the blue ladies of the second part of the conjugal dictatorship, lavishly praising Imelda's extravagance and glorification of the American way of life. They did not have to. They were well off, belonging to an illustrado and wealthy family. While children of middle class and lower class families from the universities and slums fought Marcos, they basked in the splendor and abundance of Marcos's brutal dictatorship.
But Leon Guerrero's worst sin was his blanket and servile acceptance of the obvious lies and prevarications of the Jesuit fathers who strove vainly to have Rizal retract, just as the Church fathers tried to have Voltaire retract on his death bed. Leon used his lawyer's expertise to twist the argument in favor of the Jesuits, his mentors at the Ateneo. He learned his lessons well, unlike Rizal who rebelled at the intellectual dishonesty of the Jesuits. The lesson is that the Church is powerful - that it has strong influence on our government and society. That it can bestow favors.
Rizal is the Filipinos' foremost hero. Without him, our pride in our race would collapse. In saying that Rizal "retracted", Guerrero destroys the foundation for the Filipinos' reverence of Rizal. He is saying that Rizal is an "illusion" or a "myth." He was shattering our father's image. And he did this with the sledgehammer of lies, and not with the anvil of truth.
Leon belonged to an illustrado family, the Spanish mestizo sub-race, that has the indelible stain of collaboration with whoever is in power. Rizal can also said to have been an illustrado. But he was the exception. He was Malay and Filipino to the core. His followers led by Bonifacio who staged the Cry were workers and peasants. The illustrado waffled, joining Aguinaldo when he was winning, and abandoning him when he was losing to the Spaniards and later to the Americans. Was Leon's collaboration with the Japanese not an act of nationalism, but simply a natural knee-jerk reaction of a true Spanish mestizo illustrado with its indelible class stain of perpetual collaboration with any power, legitimate or illegitimate?
Manny Almario
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
--[Ang Kapatiran Party]------------[http://www.angkapatiranparty.com]--
MANUEL almario
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
MANUEL almario
From: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
To: Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 11:04:24 PM
Subject: RE: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
--[Ang Kapatiran Party]------------[http://www.angkapatiranparty.com]--
Eduardo Gimenez
Manny,
What a truly interesting exposition from a perspective that came to me from totally unexpected directions. I never knew Leon Ma. Guerrero or Chitang (Carmen Guerrero Nakpil) though my parents knew them well as we shared the same Spanish-mestizo lineage that you described in such an interesting way:
a true Spanish mestizo illustrado with its indelible class stain of perpetual collaboration with any power, legitimate or illegitimate…”
I am a true Spanish mestizo myself but at least in my case it is not an indelible class stain as I consider my very nature as being a true Filipino regardless of bloodlines. I was born, raised and educated in the same country as Rizal. My father went to the same Ateneo as Rizal did, separated only by one generation of Spanish friars.
One of the dearest friend I have in my life is Raul Guerrero, a member of the same clan and a nephew to both Manuel Quezon and Doña Aurora, who has been living in Mexico City forever. Knowing Raul as well as I do, I just cannot help but believe that Chitang (Carmen Guerrero Nakpil) is of the same ilk, though certainly flawed as we are all flawed.
The issue wasn’t Chitang. It was Leon Ma. Guerrero, a true Spanish-mestizo ilustrado and his book on Rizal. I will also make a bold assertion that the issue has little to do with the flaws and peccadilloes in the life of these two ilustrados because flaws and peccadilloes are a universal human characteristic we all wear the way we all wear skin.
I will go back to Rizal for one moment as that is the central point of these fascinating discussion. I see Rizal as such a giant that Leon Ma. Guerrero will be a footnote in history compared to Rizal. Lest we all forget, Rizal also wore the same flawed human skin we all do. Having said this, I am compelled to add that his greatness surpasses ours by many orders of magnitude.
A final note… no human life when subjected to such intense scrutiny, can possibly emerge unsullied and unscathed. These includes our own lives. There is no harsher judge of self than self itself. I close with words of abiding respect to you Manny and to Poch for your attachment to blessed truth. But most especially to you Peewee for your heroic defense of kin. Would that I could have someone like you as kin.
Love to all,
Danding
A M Gonzalez
| You can't learn, Danding, can you? You attack me saying I don't know anything Italian. Well buddy, you just committed another one of your typical logical fallacies, Argumentum ad hominem Again your argument is invalid, hahahahahaha.... This time I will expound on it for others to better enjoy your silliness: 1. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the Bishops is in Italian at the Vatican website 2. Everyone is free to read it and translate it themselves 3. Through their own their translations, they will read exactly the following: |
"All courts of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are required to observe the canons on crimes and punishments as well as the criminal trial, respectively of both codes, along with special rules to be issued individually by the Congregation for the doctrine of faith and apply throughout." |
| 4. Nowhere in his letter does Ratzinger say, |
“What our criminal priests do… what our pedophile priests do to little boys is no one’s business but ours. So keep it secret. Hide our pedophiles from the eyes of the prying public”. |
| Ergo, you are not only illogical but you also lie. Bwahahahahaha |
Louie Fernandez
Manny,
What a truly interesting exposition from a perspective that came to me from totally unexpected directions. I never knew Leon Ma. Guerrero or Chitang (Carmen Guerrero Nakpil) though my parents knew them well as we shared the same Spanish-mestizo lineage that you described in such an interesting way:
a true Spanish mestizo illustrado with its indelible class stain of perpetual collaboration with any power, legitimate or illegitimate…”
I am a true Spanish mestizo myself but at least in my case it is not an indelible class stain as I consider my very nature as being a true Filipino regardless of bloodlines. I was born, raised and educated in the same country as Rizal. My father went to the same Ateneo as Rizal did, separated only by one generation of Spanish friars.
One of the dearest friend I have in my life is Raul Guerrero, a member of the same clan and a nephew to both Manuel Quezon and Doña Aurora, who has been living in Mexico City forever. Knowing Raul as well as I do, I just cannot help but believe that Chitang (Carmen Guerrero Nakpil) is of the same ilk, though certainly flawed as we are all flawed.
The issue wasn’t Chitang. It was Leon Ma. Guerrero, a true Spanish-mestizo ilustrado and his book on Rizal. I will also make a bold assertion that the issue has little to do with the flaws and peccadilloes in the life of these two ilustrados because flaws and peccadilloes are a universal human characteristic we all wear the way we all wear skin.
I will go back to Rizal for one moment as that is the central point of these fascinating discussion. I see Rizal as such a giant that Leon Ma. Guerrero will be a footnote in history compared to Rizal. Lest we all forget, Rizal also wore the same flawed human skin we all do. Having said this, I am compelled to add that his greatness surpasses ours by many orders of magnitude.
A final note… no human life when subjected to such intense scrutiny, can possibly emerge unsullied and unscathed. These includes our own lives. There is no harsher judge of self than self itself. I close with words of abiding respect to you Manny and to Poch for your attachment to blessed truth. But most especially to you Peewee for your heroic defense of kin. Would that I could have someone like you as kin.
Love to all,
Danding
From: MANUEL almarioTo: Lorenzo Guerrero ; Manny Amador
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez ; poch suzara ; river...@aol.com ; Libreo Isip ; Arando ; A M ; Rene ; Ricardo B. Boncan ; Lionel Tierra ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; lfer...@optonline.net ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; firstprinciples ; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero ; Teddy TanSent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:21 PMSubject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Pewee:
Being a Guerrero, I cannot blame you for coming to the defense of Leon Ma. Guerrero. I am not unaware of his many accomplishments, including his being an excellent writer, a "nationalist" by reputation, a seasoned diplomat and the many literary and government awards that he had received. He posed as a renaissance man. It is said he wrote and broadcast the piece, "Bataan has fallen," attributed to Carlos P. Romulo. He was also an aide of President Laurel during the Japanese occupation, and was among the so-called top Filipino collaborators taken to Japan by the Japanese authorities to escape the American "liberators". I think he was among those accused of treason but later on amnestied.
Please understand that I have nothing against the Filipino officials who collaborated with the Japanese. Many of them were honorable men, like Recto and Laurel, who genuinely sought to protect the Filipino people against Japanese atrocities and to advance genuine Philippine independence. I had occasion in the 60s to interview "Leonie" for my magazine, the Weekly Graphic, especially when the Sabah issue was flaring. He was then, I think, undersecretary of foreign affairs. I also admired him for championing "Asia for the Asians" policy, along with Recto, then the secretary of foreign affairs under Garcia. But, unlike Recto, Guerrero waffled when it came to Rizal. It was Recto and Laurel who pushed the Rizal bill in the late '50s, and rescued Rizal from the obscurity, obfuscation and calumny that the Church and the traditional elite had consigned him.
Guerrero also continued to serve under the Marcos dictatorship, even though it became clear that Marcos was not only a corrupt despot who sought to serve only his personal and family interests, but also totally subservient to American foreign policy and dictation. Leonie's sister, Chitang, also an accomplished writer and renowned columnist on Filipino culture, was one of the blue ladies of the second part of the conjugal dictatorship, lavishly praising Imelda's extravagance and glorification of the American way of life. They did not have to. They were well off, belonging to an illustrado and wealthy family. While children of middle class and lower class families from the universities and slums fought Marcos, they basked in the splendor and abundance of Marcos's brutal dictatorship.
But Leon Guerrero's worst sin was his blanket and servile acceptance of the obvious lies and prevarications of the Jesuit fathers who strove vainly to have Rizal retract, just as the Church fathers tried to have Voltaire retract on his death bed. Leon used his lawyer's expertise to twist the argument in favor of the Jesuits, his mentors at the Ateneo. He learned his lessons well, unlike Rizal who rebelled at the intellectual dishonesty of the Jesuits. The lesson is that the Church is powerful - that it has strong influence on our government and society. That it can bestow favors.
Rizal is the Filipinos' foremost hero. Without him, our pride in our race would collapse. In saying that Rizal "retracted", Guerrero destroys the foundation for the Filipinos' reverence of Rizal. He is saying that Rizal is an "illusion" or a "myth." He was shattering our father's image. And he did this with the sledgehammer of lies, and not with the anvil of truth.
Leon belonged to an illustrado family, the Spanish mestizo sub-race, that has the indelible stain of collaboration with whoever is in power. Rizal can also said to have been an illustrado. But he was the exception. He was Malay and Filipino to the core. His followers led by Bonifacio who staged the Cry were workers and peasants. The illustrado waffled, joining Aguinaldo when he was winning, and abandoning him when he was losing to the Spaniards and later to the Americans. Was Leon's collaboration with the Japanese not an act of nationalism, but simply a natural knee-jerk reaction of a true Spanish mestizo illustrado with its indelible class stain of perpetual collaboration with any power, legitimate or illegitimate?
Manny Almario
...
----- Original Message -----From: Eduardo GimenezCc: 'MANUEL almario' ; 'poch suzara' ; river...@aol.com ; 'Libreo Isip' ; 'Arando' ; 'A M' ; 'Rene' ; 'Ricardo B. Boncan' ; 'Lionel Tierra' ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; lfer...@optonline.net ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; 'firstprinciples' ; 'Gabriel Ma. Guerrero' ; 'Teddy Tan'Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:04 AMSubject: RE: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hideTo Peewee and Gabby,
This is my take on the issue of Leon Ma. Guerrero. Whether or not our great national hero Jose Rizal retracted, isn’t to me an issue that could diminish the overall greatness of this other great Filipino intellectual. My opinion is clear on this issue. Rizal did not retract. He died shot by a Spanish firing squad. My grandfather, recently returned from his studies in Europe, was placed in uniform by the Spanish authorities and was standing guard as a “voluntario” at the Luneta almost directly to Rizal’s side when he was shot. Rizal had neither a rosary nor a scapular with him. What he did attest was this… and I am paraphrasing him: “The execution of Rizal turned the sentiments of almost every Spanish in the Philippines against their own government. There was a very large resentment against the Spanish government and the church for having committed such an atrocity”.
The church’s power to mangle the truth is of historic proportions. Leon Ma. Guerrero wrote what he wrote because the evidence before him was clearly as his narrative had expressed it. That he was misled on this one instance does not diminish the greatness of this other Filipino intellectual. Were Rizal alive, he would be the first to stand in defense of Leon Ma. Guerrero’s inalienable right to err. He would dispute with every fiber of his being the tarnishing of such a great life filled with great works that begot such a great family following the same intellectual traditions. This family has produced other illustrious academicians and intellectuals including the redoubtable Carmen Guerrero Nakpil and that other remarkable lady of history, Gemma Cruz Araneta.
A historian friend of mine from Maine once remarked to me that history has in its bosom enough support for virtually every position on virtually every issue. Researchers and historians know this is true. We as consumers of history do not. We tend to be very harsh with historians who present views that differ from ours. Rizal’s place in history is well established. He is one of history’s greatest sacrificial figures. Whether or not there were errors in Leon Ma. Guerrero’s rendering of Rizal’s life will not touch one whit the greatness of Rizal. But I for one will refrain to use the likelihood of one error to tarnish the greatness of another superb Filipino. I would rather honor our great ones than to try to bring them down notch by notch.
Love to all,
Danding
From: Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>
To: Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 5:33:51 PM
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Dear Manny Almario,
In another communication related to this topic, you have called Leon Ma. Guerrero a traitor for writing in his book, "The First Filipino" that Jose Rizal retracted, based on evidence. I will not go into the long list of Mr. Guerrero's numerous accomplishments and awards,including the prestigious and highest award in the Country, The "Mabini" medal. Guerrero was one of the greatest statesmen and foremost Nationalists this Country has ever had. There are numerous books, articles, and writings on him, so I will forego mentioning all these. Anyone interested can look this up in any book related to Philippine History. He was many things in his lifetime, a traitor definitely not!
Guerrero's book, "The First Filipino" was awarded the first prize in the Rizal biography contest held under the auspices of the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission in 1961. If you do not agree with what Guerrero has written, you are most welcome to write your own version of Jose Rizal's life and death, or dwell entirely on his retraction, as that would suit you. You might even get an award for that! However, wrongly advising your nephew on the evils of that book is somewhat odious and frankly, shameful. Why not let him discover for himself, if Guerrero is wrong or right. He should be intelligent enough. In my opinion, evidence to the effect of the retraction would be enough, as is usually the case for those who believe in Science, present company excluded!
You made mention of the book of Austin Coates as being superior,, due to the fact, of course, that he went along with the claim of the non-retraction. Well, is it surprising that Austin Coates was a Mason and a "Freethinker"!!! His book is, by the way, not a new book, it's an old one and written in the past when being a mason and a Freethinker was something exciting and glamorous! These days of course, everyone is! Good book, but quite biased. If you want a better biography and analysis of Jose Rizal and his novels, go and read the excellent book, "Rizal, through a Glass, Darkly" by Fr. Javier De Pedro. But of course, being written by a priest, it would be considered junk to you!
Cheers,
Peewee Guerrero
....----- Original Message -----From: MANUEL almarioTo: Manny Amador ; Lorenzo GuerreroCc: Eduardo Gimenez ; poch suzara ; river...@aol.com ; Libreo Isip ; Arando ; A M ; Rene ; Ricardo B. Boncan ; Lionel Tierra ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; lfer...@optonline.net ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero ; Teddy TanSent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 8:53 PMSubject: Re: A reply to Poch et al on the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and DeceptionsRizal, a scientist, was an atheist. He used the word "God" only as a figure of speech, meaning nature. That is why the devious Church killed him.Manny Almario
----- Original Message -----From: MANUEL almarioTo: Manny AmadorCc: Eduardo Gimenez ; poch suzara ; river...@aol.com ; Libreo Isip ; Arando ; A M ; Rene ; Ricardo B. Boncan ; Lionel Tierra ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; lfer...@optonline.net ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; lorenzog...@gmail.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; firstprinciplesSent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 8:50 PMSubject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Amador: Father Obach was certainly lying. He had no proof that Rizal wrote the retraction just to be able to marry Josephine. Obach claims that Rizal later took back the retraction after he realized that "he (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him." If Rizal took back the retraction, it means he had retracted the retraction.
You claim "Rizal retracted, and his retractions were published." When were they published? There was only one "retraction" that was published, and that was the document allegedly found 39 years after Rizal's death in the archives of Madrid. Clearly your sources were lying.
Stop maligning our hero.
Manny Almario
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:39 AM, MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If Rizal had written a retraction two years before his execution, as you claimed (quoting from Austin Craig), how come the Jesuits moved heaven and hell to get a retraction from Rizal hours before his death?
The answer is in the very same text that I quoted earlier:Do you have any trouble understanding what was written?
This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
It is time you remove your blinders brought about by your hatred of the Church and accept the historical facts as they are. Rizal retracted, and his retractions were published. There were also witnesses to the earlier retraction two years before his execution.
Stop lying about our hero to suit your prejudiced agenda.
God bless!
....Ricardo,
Do you really have the free will to choose between being a Catholic or just being a Protestant? Is there no such thing as the free will to reject both evils bundled together? For Christ's sake Ricardo, when are you going to stop being a religious clown on these pages, huh????
For my part, with my free will as a gift from God, I choose to be an atheist.
Poch Suzara, Atheist
From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>
To: Ricky Sobrevinas <ricksob...@yahoo.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; "river...@aol.com" <river...@aol.com>; manny amador <manny....@gmail.com>; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 8:00:40
Subject: Re: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions: Brilliant
Brilliant and masterly? It is a rant if I ever read one. Historian wannabees allege and charge yet do not substantiate. Regardless of whether Rizal did recant his position, the point is he was rebelling against the crown-cleric corruption of HIS TIME and rightly so. This does not in any way invalidate the church as a whole.It's plain cowardice to claim being Catholic out of cultural pressure. Catholicism is a very demanding belief, either you are or your not, either you can fulfill the demands or you can't! For heavens sake if you're going to protest something, go all the way and call yourself a protestant!AMDG
From: Ricky Sobrevinas <ricksob...@yahoo.com>
To: poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; "river...@aol.com" <river...@aol.com>; manny amador <manny....@gmail.com>; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 4:53:59 AM
Subject: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions: Brilliant
A BRILLIANT MASTERLY ESSAY ON JOSE RIZAL
Poch, with all my heart, I commend you for this brilliant essay on the greatest Filipino, a humanist, greatest political scientist a profound intellectual, a Progressive, a great Freemason, a lover par excellence, and the inspiration of rational minds who refuse to submit to eternal ecclesiastical ignorance!
I myself am a nominal Catholic out of history but a Protestant in reality, that cannot suffer the perpetual ignorance of the Vatican and especially the Philippine Catholic Church. And I admit I am so, against the obvious dictates of my Reason, and of scientific inquiry. My Faith is an oxymoron to me, but every person is entitled to at least one!
"Jose Rizal pointed out that evolution in education, ( not reliance on foreign investments ), is the best hope of the nation to enjoy the highest standard of living and thinking. The system of education for the Filipino must be based on science and technology, and not on prayers and theology. Indeed, according to Rizal, a free nation can rise no higher than the standard of beliefs and values set in its schools, colleges, and universities. Is there hope for the Philippines? Yes, there is! But first its system of education must be radically revamped. No more silly prayers to support a stupid theology. Only more science and more technology via more scientific method of thinking."
One day this will happen, because superstitions die hard, especially if the educators of our youth continue to be largely under the sway of the Catholic Church.
Lastly, from a common sense standpoint, one can't believe Rizal retracted his views of the Catholic Church (regardless of what Guerrero says which is unscientific and without proof) because the friars wanted him to be shot in the back. But defiant of the friars to the end, contrary to what they say, he wheeled around to take the bullets facing them in his finest hour, as if to say "You can kill me but never my spirit or the TRUTH of what I wrote. It was a final lesson, expression, and defiant example to the Filipino people never to give in to ignorance, exploiters, murderers, and the Church!
Ricky----- Original Message -----From: Eduardo GimenezTo: 'poch suzara' ; river...@aol.com ; 'manny amador' ; 'Libreo Isip' ; 'Arando' ; 'A M' ; 'Rene' ; 'Ricardo B. Boncan' ; 'Libreo Isip' ; 'Lionel Tierra'Cc: river...@aol.com ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; lfer...@optonline.net ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; 'MANUEL almario' ; lorenzog...@gmail.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; rv...@yahoo.com ; isip...@yahoo.com ; nelt...@gmail.com ; ara...@btconnect.comSent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 5:26 PMSubject: RE: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and DeceptionsPoch,
Rizal belongs to the ages. He was a unique hero who consciously sacrificed his own life for his nation when he was at the prime of his powers. He knew without a shadow of a doubt who were his true implacable enemies. He knew the soldiers who were going to shoot him were mere tools of the priests who hated his ideas and his ideals. His foes were not politicians because in general politicians do not kill their foes. His foe were the priests who had looked at his ideas and had branded him evil because of his ideas. Because of his difference of belief.
The Catholic Church prior to Rizal, and during his day, were inimical “to the death” against ideas that the church held as dangerous and heretical. Almost from its very beginning, the Catholic Church had given to itself the power to judge as “evil-unto-death” whatever ideas it deemed to be thus. For nearly 2,000 years Rizal knew that the Catholic Church had cold-bloodedly tortured and killed millions of men, women and children merely for having opinions that differed from church dogma. This was the implacable enemy Rizal faced. He had no illusions about the existence of even a trace of benign intent within the hearts of these frocked and skirted monster-priests who were about to have him killed.
Rizal passed every test. Every test of courage, of intellect, of heart, of kindness, of emotion. Even among national heroes Rizal nearly stands alone as a self-sacrificing heroic symbol. There is no equivalent figure to Rizal in American, British or Spanish history. He is a man for the ages in the same way Mahatma Gandhi was… and yes… in the same way Jesus was if one were to believe the NT scriptures.
Love to all,
Danding
From: poch suzara [mailto:pochol...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 1:13 PM
To: river...@aol.com; manny amador; Libreo Isip; Arando; A M; Rene; Ricardo B. Boncan; Libreo Isip; Lionel Tierra
Subject: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
On the Death of JOSE RIZAL and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
by Poch Suzara
OUR ASIAN NEIGHBORS
The secret why other Asian neighbors are economically ahead of the Philippines is no secret at all. They have been substantiating to the fullest extent possible what Jose Rizal, our nation’s chief hero, was precisely saying to millions of Filipinos more than a hundred years ago: “Wake up! Embrace science! Utilize the scientific way of thinking! Start to emulate the freethinkers! Knowledge is the heritage of mankind, but only the courageous inherit it! We can only serve our country by telling the naked truth. However bitter it may be!”
Indeed, as the only Catholic country in Asia, we would rather have more faith in prayer and theology than take advantage of the power of science, and technology.
RIZAL'S RETRACTION SCANDAL
If Rizal had retracted from his attacks against the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church, and if, according to his Catholic biographer Leon M. Guerrero, Rizal had gone to confession four times, heard mass in his death-cell, and received holy communion before he was executed, then Rizal should be branded a traitor to all freedom fighters. He deserve not to be respected or admired as a hero. He should, instead, be canonized a saint of God. But then again, if Rizal had retracted, why then should the church feel dedicated to get Rizal’s true character expunged out of the Filipino psyche? The truth of the matter was that the Church did everything possible to counteract Rizal’s honest-to-goodness scientific temper of mind. Indeed, in his Noli and Fili, Rizal exposed the Philippine damaged culture caused by organized superstition otherwise popularly known as Christianity. Thus, the story of his retraction was nothing more than a theological concoction to sanitize, if not to neutralize considerably the volume of Rizal’s humanistic and scientific messages to the Filipino as a people.
RIZAL'S BIOGRAPHER
Rizal’s biographer – Leon M. Guerrero, clearly notes that Rizal returned to the Church of his youth in extremes of self-abasement, frenziedly in childlike fashion, spending the remaining hours of earning indulgences from purgatory by confessing four times, and obsequiously attending to Fr. Balaguer and Villaclara’s wishes. In brief, according to this biographer, Rizal died as a timid coward. Indeed, according to this official government commissioned biographer, our national hero
in the end turned out to be a turncoat, a creepy-crawly coward.
But then again, four years before his death, Rizal in 1882 wrote a letter to Gregorio Aglipay: “. . . It is probable that I will be executed – then they will try to bring along my moral death by covering my memory with slander.”
THE SHAME IN RIZAL'S LIFE AND TIMES
The shame in Rizal’s life is not the retraction of his deeds, writings or personal conduct. Such retraction was only a frailocratic figment of the impoverished priestly imagination. The real shame comes from the Filipino historians and other Catholic writers, not to mention the Knights of Rizal themselves who believed not in Rizal’s power of intellect, but believed instead his enemies – the friars – who invented sacred lies about this great man. Via the control of the system of education
in the Philippines , these friars have and
still are blocking expediently Rizal’s qualified and legitimate entry into the world stage as one of mankind’s greatest thinkers. But then again how can the world learn of Rizal’s intellectual power if the Filipinos themselves know so little of the health and wealth of this great 19th century Filipino scientists, humanist, thinker, and writer?
SANTO THOMAS UNIVERSITY AND ATENEO
Rizal was a product of Ateneo and Santo Thomas; yet both Catholic universities continue to assassinate the character of this great humanist thinker. Rizal had learned on his own initiative, outside academic wall, how to think deeply and how to embrace intellectual honesty valiantly. Indeed, to this day, all Catholic universities still teach that during his last day on this earth, just hours before he was executed for his principles, noble values, and rational beliefs, Rizal retracted and went back to embrace the Catholic Church and its teachings. What brazen lies! It is no less than a tall story.
A cheap shot at a great man. Otherwise, after his death, he should have been given a Catholic burial and his bodily remains not just put inside an old sack and then thrown in the Paco Cemetery in the corner where heretics are stashed away like dead animals.
RIZAL AND EDUCATION
Jose Rizal pointed out that evolution in education, ( not reliance on foreign investments ), is the best hope of the nation
to enjoy the highest standard of living and thinking. The system of education for the Filipino must be based on science and technology, and not on prayers and theology. Indeed, according to Rizal, a free nation can rise no higher than the standard of beliefs and values set in its schools, colleges, and universities. Is there hope for the Philippines? Yes, there is! But first its system of education must be radically revamped. No more silly prayers to support a stupid theology. Only more science and more technology via more scientific method of thinking.
RIZAL - THE HUMANISt
Rizal struggled not only against Spanish authority, but against superstition. He fought not in the battlefield, but in the minds of men and in the hearts of women. Rizal was Asia ’s first scientific-humanist thinker put to death a century ago by musketry as authorized by theocracy. The same Catholic theocracy today that is keeping the Filipino youth via education to live in guilt and to fear new and fresh ideas; indeed, to keep away from the free market of ideas, and to hate, at the same time, the freethinkers, especially the books written by freethinkers. “Blotting out their brains,” Rizal wrote, “in faith, prayers, masses, novenas, superimposed these onto native superstition.”
A CENTURY AFTER RIZAL'S DEATH
After a hundred years, how influential has Jose Rizal been on the Filipino as a people? Millions today would readily give credence by listening to the words of a Mike Velarde of El Shaddai preaching pastoral nonsense derived from the bible – a book written not by Filipinos but by foreigners. Only a handful of scholars would care to read and understand the real Rizal and carry out his principles and ideals for the achievement of pride, dignity, intellectual and scientific honesty for the Filipino as a people. And to think, the Jews, the Chosen People of God, never considered the bible as a holy book at any time in their history. In fact, the Jews live in a Jewish State. They do not live in a Christian country – the land where Jesus Christ was presumed born.
JOSE RIZAL AND NINOY AQUINO
Ninoy Aquino said: “The Filipino is worth dying for.” Well, Ninoy is a hero today. Filipinos killed him. Imagine Jose Rizal having said too: “The Catholics are worth dying for.” Rizal today would be a saint. The Catholics had him killed. And this is exactly how sick we all are today as the Sick Man of Asia . Thanks to Filipino catholic theologians, like Father Jose S. Arcilla, S.J., and his gang who have not ceased writing brazen lies about Jose Rizal’s soul saved in heaven. What a crock of religious hypocrisy, if not sacred mockery of historical veracity.
RIZAL - THE GREATEST OF FILIPINO THINKERS
Rizal, indeed, was among the greatest
of thinker. He clearly saw in his day what
we vaguely see around us today: religion
and diseases flourishing hand in hand under ignorance, filth, hate, and poverty. What irked the friars against Rizal was his refusal to continue to believe in Christianity; for, he learned to be on the side of humanity. For my part, if there’s life after death, it’s great thinkers like Rizal that I should wish to be with. Otherwise, if I will just find myself in
the company of Filipino theologians, Knights of Rizal, and among the Opus Dei gang – the kind of people who had Rizal put to death, please Lord spare me the sacred mockery. I would rather be burning forever in hell than
to have faith in such sacred garbage.
THE SPANISH FRIARS
If the Spanish friars had only introduced the concept of humanism instead of establishing in the Philippines religious barbarism and other forms of supernaturalism, Filipino priests like Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora need not have been garroted to death for wanting reforms within the Catholic Church in their time. Moreover, great thinkers like Jose Rizal need not have been executed by firing squad for writing to promote common human decency amongst Filipino to learn to enjoy throughout the land national pride and Asian dignity.
LIES AND DECEPTION ABOUT JOSE RIZAL
Rizal never said or wrote: “It was my pride that ruined me.” Those words were put into the mouth of Rizal by his official prize-winning biographer Leon Maria Guerrero who believed, as a Catholic, the Rizal retraction story as concocted by the sciolistic friars. Moreover, Rizal never “got rid of his political appetite, moral perplexities, and intellectual pride.” On the contrary, Rizal chose to die proudly. After the superstitious friars stripped him of his dignity, it was no longer possible for Rizal to go on living as a decent man and as a thinking Filipino.
RIZAL'S UNFINISHED REVOLUTION
Rizal called for the revolution of the mind
to throw off the exploitation of man by man under the inspiration of superstition. This was a century ago. But due to our fear of the Lord and our love for that pie in the sky, Rizal’s call for that revolution of the human intellect ended up to what is recognized today in the history of the Filipino people as “the unfinished revolution.” Rizal wrote: “ I am not writing for this generation, but for those yet to come. If this one could read what I have written, it would burn my books, my whole life’s work. But the generation that deciphers these characters will be a learned generation; it will understand me and say: Not everyone slept during the night of our forefathers! These strange characters – the sense of mystery they will create – will save my work from the ignorance of men, just as strange rites and the sense of the unknown have preserved many truths at the hands of priests.”
RIZAL'S KILLERS
What kind of men needed to see Rizal dead, discarded and forgotten? Were they men of reason, logic, decency, science or philosophy? Were they avid readers, critical thinkers, or scientific investigators? Were they men at home with civilized humanity? No! On the contrary, Rizal’s enemies were the friends of blind faith: - the superstitious primitives, the sanctimonious hypocrites, and those indeed who were selfish, greedy, corrupt, stupid, and insane. Rizal’s enemies of a hundred years ago, are still the same enemies we have today. They are the ones insisting that it makes no difference whether Rizal retracted from his religious, political and philosophical principles or not. What a silly conclusion to bestow upon the greatest of Filipino seminal thinker who died for the liberation of the Filipino mind and heart, and indeed, for all mankind. Shame on you cowards - you so-called “Knights of Rizal.”
WHAT IS A GREAT FILIPINO
A great Filipino is one who has had the intellect and the courage to put more sense where the theologians and the politicians in cahoots together have put only nonsense making for our sick society. In the 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines , only one rare Filipino had the courage and the intellect to stand up against great odds to be a great Filipino - Jose Rizal - a truth-seeker, a scientist, and a humanist. To keep the Filipino frightened of the truth, however, Rizal was publicly executed by those in church authority - the ecclesiastical liars gifted with a free will from divinity to promote in the Philippines social insanity. Poch Suzara
SPANISH CATHOLIC FRIARS
In his official biography of Rizal, Guerrero disclosed that the Spanish Catholic friars made a firm offer to Rizal the amount of 100,000 pesos and a chair to teach philosophy at the University of Santo Thomas on the condition that he signed the retraction document. It has been reported by the friars that Rizal did sign his retraction papers. And yet, after Rizal was shot to death at the Luneta by a firing squad, not even a mass in church was said for Rizal who died as a penitent Catholic. In fact, Rizal was not even given a proper Catholic burial. His remains were just thrown in a little corner in Paco cemetery where heretics and infidels were buried.
The trouble with Guerrero as the Rizal biographer, he was more interested in defending the business of the Catholic Church and its teachings than defending truthfully the subject of his biography – Jose Rizal and his teachings.
Rizal never threatened me with eternal hellfire if I did not believe or spread any of his words. In the fight therefore between Rizal and the Catholic Church, I will always be on the side of Rizal. Never will I abandon such a great man even if it means losing my silly soul to end up in a silly hell as managed by a silly devil in cahoots with a silly Supreme Being.
RIZAL'S PREDILECTION
After six months of stay, he left for Europe for the second time on February 3,1888 to pursue the task he had set for himself. His brief stay enabled him to judge the effect of his Noli Me Tangere. He knew he was a marked man for writing the book which not only shook the Spanish rule, but precisely rattled more the foundation of authority in the Philippines - the Catholic church and its teachings.
The military trial of Rizal was not meant to administer justice throughout the land. It was done purposely to execute him in public so that the Filipinos would be frightened to death and subsequently to stop dreaming of freedom under free and humanistic thought. Thus, when the so-called Spanish rule was thrown out with the interference of the US naval forces, what stayed behind to continue controlling Filipino minds and dominating Filipino hearts was the Catholic Church. Via Catholic schools, colleges, and universities – Catholic teachings prevailed in the Philippines. Consider the average Filipino in this 21st century. He is more conversant about the fantastic life and times of Jesus Christ than he knows anything about the realistic life and times of Jose Rizal. And to think Jose Rizal was born in the Philippines - a Christian country. Jesus Christ was born, if at all, in Israel that is today not even a Christian country. It is a Jewish State.
Catholic friars claimed that before he was executed Rizal retracted and asked for the forgiveness of his sin against God and for the pardon of his crime against the Filipino people. These developments, however, are based upon religious hogwash. The Rizal retraction scandal was concocted by the religious cowards. Just as much as the religious cowards of our day – the Knights of Rizal - continue to be afraid to stand up to defend Rizal’s great intellectual capacity as a rare Filipino gifted with the capacity not only to think but also to die with self-respect and dignity.
GREAT MEN
France had Voltaire. Germany had Nietzche. Austria had Freud. China had Sun Yet Sen. England had Bertrand Russell. Italy had Galileo and Bruno. America had Tom Paine and Ingersoll. Cuba had Jose Marti and Fidel Castro. These were some of the great men who, with courage and intellect, put more sense into the minds of men and the hearts of women where nature has put only nonsense.
We Filipinos could have had Jose Rizal. The greatest and rarest Filipino this country has ever produced. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church cut him down to size. Millions of Filipinos still have no inkling why Rizal was one of mankind’s greatest heroes. Indeed, college professors, historians, biographers, including his own descendants have been frightened by the Catholic Church authority to believe that Rizal was executed while repentant of his sins against God and regretful of his crimes against his own people. What brazen lies to tell about the greatest Filipino thinker who ever lived. The greatest Filipino who died sober and not drunk with lies.
In the meantime, pontifical fear and ecclesiastical ignorance are the recycled garbage dished out in our schools, colleges, and universities. Especially those owned and managed by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations in the Philippines . Consider the average Filipino in this 21st century: he is more comfortable with stupid prayer under a theology than he is at home with intelligent science producing technology to enhance our freedom and democracy and social sanity.
Indeed, if yesterday Rizal locally was the pride of the Malay race, today globally he should already be the pride of the human race.
ALBERT EINSTEIN ON JOSE RIZAL
“Great spirits have always found opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thoughts in clear form.” Indeed, Einstein had in mind men like our own Jose Rizal when he wrote: “It keeps repeating itself in this world, so fine and honest: The parson alarms the populace, the genius is executed.”
BERTRAND RUSSELL ON JOSE RIZAL
“A man who has once perceived, however, temporarily and however briefly, what makes greatness of spirit, can no longer be happy if he allows himself to be petty, self-seeking, troubled by trivial misfortunes, dreading what fate may have in store for him. A man capable of greatness of spirit will open wide the windows of his mind, letting the winds blow freely upon it from every portion of the universe. He will see himself and life and the world as truly as our human limitations will permit; realizing the brevity and minuteness of human life, he will realize also that in individual minds is concentrated whatever of value the known universe contains. And he will see that the man whose mind mirrors the world becomes in a sense as great as the world, In emancipation from the fears that beset the slave of circumstance he will experience a profound joy, and through all the vicissitudes of his outward life he will remain in the depths of being a happy man.”
CARL SAGAN ON JOSE RIZAL
“As a consequence of the enormous social and technological changes of the last few centuries, the world is not working well. We do not live in traditional and static societies. But our governments, in resisting change, act as if we did. Unless we destroy ourselves utterly, the future belongs to those societies that while not ignoring the reptilian and mammalian parts of our being, enable the characteristically human components of our nature to flourish; to those societies that encourage diversity rather than conformity; to those societies willing to invest resources in a variety of social, political, economic and cultural experiments, and prepared to sacrificed short-term advantage for long-term benefit; to those societies that treat new ideas as delicate, fragile and immensely valuable pathways to the future.”
SAM HARRIS ON JOSE RIZAL
“We are the final judges of what is good, just as we remain the final judges of what is logical. And on neither front has our conversation with one another reached an end. There need to be no scheme of rewards and punishments transcending this life to justify our moral intuitions or to render them effective in guiding our behavior in the world. The only angels we need to invoke are those of our better nature: reason, honesty, and love. The only demons we must fear are those that lurk inside every human mind: ignorance, hatred, greed, and faith, which is surely the devil\s masterpiece.”
RICHARD DAWKINS ON JOSE RIZAL
Fraud, illusion, trickery, hallucination, honest mistake or outright lies – the combination adds up to such a probable alternative that I shall always doubt casual observations or second hand stories that seem to suggest the catastrophic overthrow of existing science. Existing science will undoubtedly be overthrown; not, however, by casual anecdotes or performances on television, (or by public execution of scientists like Rizal) but by rigorous research, repeated, dissected and repeated again.” Poch Suzara
BUDDHA ON JOSE RIZAL
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.” Siddharta Buddha
To MY DEAR JOSE RIZAL
Wherever you are, I have the highest respect for you as a man, and I have the deepest love for you as a Filipino. In this connection, I shall continue, to the end of my days, to struggle against those who had you, publicly, put to death. They are still existing, alive and kicking doing more harm, more damage, more evil than ever. Indeed, in this 21st century, your enemies are still in control of our schools, colleges, and universities twisting the mind of the Filipino to remain spiritually poor as a people, and still distorting the heart of the Philippines to remain morally bankrupt as a nation!
Sir: in the God-forsaken country, you are about the one and only Filipino, with dignity and self-respect, worthy to be called Filipino! The rest are trying only to save themselves the trouble of having to think. As the Sick Man of Asia , we only love to believe. Thus, instead of appeals to principles and logic and philosophy, our public spirit is only aroused by personalities and celebrities. Indeed, instead of being the mature masters of our ideals and principles as a society, we only continue to be the childish victims of a foreign Jewish deity.
RIZAL'S ULTIMO ADIOS
How do we summarize it? The poem was completed on Dec. 29, 1896 hours before he was executed. He was able to smuggle out the finished poem. He placed it inside a lamp and gave to his visitors, among whom was his sister and whispered to her: “look inside. There is something inside it.” He made an extra copy by putting it inside his shoe for insurance purpose.
The Ultimo Adios was Rizal’s last poetic defiance against those who continue to be childish believers instead of being intelligent thinkers. The Ultimo Adios is a strong message to the Filipino as a people: – to begin to think that we all share only one common enemy together. No, not the Spaniards or the Americans or the Japanese, or what have you, etc. But our enemy is stupid religion. Indeed, religion that encourages individual stupidity that culminates into social insanity.
MY DREAM
“My dream,” wrote Rizal to a Spanish governor-general, “was my country’s prosperity . . . I would like the Filipino people to become worthy, noble, and honorable.”
On another occasion Rizal also wrote: “I would like the Filipinos to be Brilliant, Enlightened, Intelligent, and Progressive.”
Ever since Rizal was executed by the religious morons in the 19th century, the same religious morons carried on with power and authority to be in charge especially of the system of education in the Philippines . Indeed, we were taught in our schools, colleges, and universities to believe and to have faith in the holy bible that clearly states: “Love not this world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not with him.” John 2:15. Jesus, the loving son of God also preached: “If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26
Thus, as the Sick Man of Asia , even the Knights of Rizal continue to ignore what Rizal was saying to all Filipinos more than a century ago. Only people in foreign countries believed, followed, and substantiated what Rizal was saying. After Rizal’s execution, the president of the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Pre-history, - Dr. Rudolph Virchow, said: “In him we lose not only a true friend of Germany and German science but also the man who had the knowledge and the energy to introduce modern ideas and thinking into the Philippines.”
RIZAL WROTE
“Where are the youth who will consecrate their golden hours, their dreams, and their enthusiasm to the welfare of their native land? Where are the youth who will generously pour out blood to wash away so much shame, so much crime, so much abomination? Pure and spotless must the victim be! Where are you youth, who will embody in yourselves the vigor of life that has left our veins, the purity of ideas that has been contaminated in our brains, the fire of enthusiasm that has been quenched in our hearts? We await you, O Youth! Come, for we await you!”
Ever since the death of Rizal by public execution in 1896, the history of the Filipino people has been the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly struggle to deny the power of the human mind with knowledge, and to reject the beauty of the human heart with wisdom. Indeed, to be not happy, not sane, and culturally constructive; but only to be unhappy, insane, and traditionally destructive.
Thanks to our teachers in school and professors in our colleges, and universities – millions of Filipinos have yet to learn to substantiate the words of Jose Rizal: “I would like the Filipinos to be brilliant, enlightened, intelligent, and progressive.”
Sadly, even the Knights of Rizal have been busy promoting social and political insanity in this God-forsaken country. Especially for the sake of preserving in this faith-soaked 21st century – the beliefs and values of Christianity.
In this country, when one Pinoy suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When millions of Pinoys, however, suffer from a delusion complicated by historical confusion, it is called Christianity.
Ricardo B. Boncan
Fr. Marciano M. Guzman on the Retraction and Conversion of Jose Rizal
THE HARD FACTS ABOUT RIZAL’S CONVERSION
by Fr. Marciano
M. Guzman
(The author, a direct descendant of Rizal’s younger sister, Soledad, has written extensively on related issues.)
From time to time, some individuals try to challenge the truth about Rizal’s final conversion as well as his retraction of religious errors before his execution.
These attempts to deny our national hero’s conversion and retraction are made without conclusive and documented evidence. They normally do not transcend the psychological arguments devised by the blatant disbelief and stubbornness of some members of masonic lodges.
Typical of such reaction was a statement made in 1908 by a Venerable Master of the Grand Regional Lodge of the Philippines. It was pronounced in a meeting called to counteract the effects of Wenceslao Retana’s personal conviction about Rizal’s retraction, expressed in the book Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal. “If Rizal did retract,” the high-ranking Filipino Mason said, “he might have done it through altruism and not for personal interest. But still I have not believed and remain disbelieving in his retraction, notwithstanding so many things said about it, and in spite of the assurances of Jesuits and Retana… the idol of the Philippines has never changed his ideas, in a word, he has never retracted.”
A similar type of argument could be found in Rafael Palma’s The Pride of the Malay Race. “Rizal was a man of character,” wrote Palma in his book, “and he had demonstrated it in many circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?”
Those who wish to deny Rizal’s conversion in the last hours of his life go against solid historical evidence.
Facts of the Case
The most formidable proof is the document of Rizal’s retraction of errors and profession of faith, duly signed and drawn in his own handwriting from beginning to end.
J.M. Cavanna, CM, in his book Rizal and the Philippines of His Days, summarized the hard facts connected with this document. Several eyewitnesses were present when Rizal wrote this holograph. They included three Jesuit priests, four lieutenants of the army, three soldiers of the artillery corps, and a colonel of the Manila Garrison who acted as Judge Advocate in Rizal’s trial.
Moreover, on the day of the hero’s execution, his retraction holograph was presented to and examined by the Archbishop of Manila, the Vicar General, the Secretary of the Chancery, the Provincial Superior and two priests of the Society of Jesus, the Fiscal of the Audiencia, one newspaper editorial staff, a layman administrator of a pious confraternity, and most probably other people in the Ateneo and in the Archbishop’s residence where the document was brought.
On the day of Rizal’s death, the full text of the retraction
document was published in four leading Manila papers of the widest circulation in the country. On the following days, another Manila newspaper and three Madrid papers with direct correspondents in Manila, together with at least six other Madrid dailies, four Spanish magazines and one Portuguese periodical in Hong Kong published the text of the document with many details about how it was written and signed by the national hero. One of these correspondents declared that “a sister of Dr. Jose Rizal gave him the news about the conversion and retraction of the glorious convict.”
Besides, as a proof of his unconditional acceptance of the Catholic faith, Rizal, on his own initiative, signed a Catholic prayer-book with a long, detailed, and explicit profession of faith. He did this after reciting publicly, on his knees before the altar, and in the presence of all the witnesses of his retraction, an act of faith followed by two other prayers of Christian hope and charity. Four eyewitnesses corroborated this fact, and 3 qualified witnesses, 4 newspapers of Manila and Madrid at that time, and 4 historians and writers confirmed their testimony.
It is on record that the national hero received the sacrament of Penance 4 times and received Holy Communion fervently during a Mass, before proceeding to Bagumbayan for the execution. At Bagumbayan, moments before his death, in the presence of a “compact multitude which filled Luneta’s esplanade,” Rizal, renewing his contrition for sins already confessed and for whatever he might have forgotten, again asked for forgiveness, kissing the crucifix presented to him by the priest, and for the last time received sacramental absolution.
The last absolution he received was recorded in an official document of the government. His previous four confessions in his prison cell were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers of Manila, Madrid and Hong Kong at that time, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.
Moreover, Rizal’s conversion is highlighted by his Catholic marriage with Josephine Bracken, solemnized before the altar by a priest with sacred vestments, pronouncing the sacramental blessing according to the Roman Ritual. This solemn canonical marriage, which could not have taken place without Rizal’s previous conversion, was witnessed and attested to by many people.
Furthermore, the conversion of the national hero is supported by the many acts of Catholic piety—such as kneeling
before the altar, praying the Rosary, putting on the blue scapular of the Immaculate Conception—which he spontaneously and publicly performed during his last hours.
Rizal’s death was certainly not that of a rationalist and free-thinker. “Sectarian interests,” J.M. Cavanna, CM, aptly commented, “have vainly wasted ink and paper in useless quibbles and cavils to deny the undeniable, or at least to cast doubts on the document of Rizal’s retraction which is the lasting monument of his unfading glory.”
What Caused His Conversion
Rizal’s Jesuit friends were not optimistic about the hero’s change of attitude regarding his religious ideas by noontime of December 29, 1896, the day before his execution. He was adamant about his religious beliefs and did not want to abjure Masonry.
Towards mid-afternoon, Fr. Vicente Balaguer, the Jesuit missionary who dealt with Rizal in Dapitan, had a serious discussion with the latter in his prison cell about religious matters. During their conversation, the priest frankly told him that unless he renounced his errors, he would surely be condemned in hell. Rizal finally gave his priest friend a faint glimmer of hope. He promised that he would sincerely pray to God for the gift of faith.
Close to 7 p.m., Rizal asked Fr. Jose Vilaclara, SJ, his former professor of Physics at the Ateneo, who had arrived less than an hour earlier, to hear his confession. He was told that he had to make a retraction of his religious errors first, and that a retraction formula was being sent to him from the Archbishop’s residence.
The hero eagerly awaited the arrival of the retraction document. It came at 10:00 p.m. Fr. Balaguer sat down with Rizal at the writing table and read to him the long formula prepared by the Archbishop. After hearing the first paragraphs, Rizal did not want to sign it.
He told Fr. Balaguer: “Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine. I will not sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself.”
Fr. Balaguer then produced the brief formula written by Fr. Pio Pi, SJ, Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines, which the Archbishop had earlier deemed adequate. After listening to the first paragraph, Rizal signified his acceptance of it, since its style was simple, like his own writing style. While Fr. Balaguer read out the formula, Rizal proceeded to write it in his own handwriting, making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Thus we have a clear, undeniable proof of Rizal’s conversion.
What caused this radical change in the soul of the national hero? Was it primarily brought about by the way his Jesuit mentors and friends “directed the attack” to the sentiment, and not to reason, as Wenceslao Retana, the well-known Rizalist, charged? Did he, during those last hours, act under suggestion, influenced by “a series of phenomena” or “abnormal circumstances?” Was his conversion, in Retana’s description, “a romantic concession of the poet,” and not a “meditated concession of the philosopher?”
It is true that the Jesuits tried to appeal to Rizal’s feelings and sentiments in their effort to bring him back to the Catholic faith. Thus, in an early morning visit on December 29, Fr. Luis Viza brought him the little statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus carved by Rizal when he was still a student at the Ateneo. Rizal took that image, kissed it, and placed it on his table.
Moreover, as we have earlier seen, during their discussion, Fr. Balaguer warned him that if he persisted in his errors, he would be condemned in hell. He also told him that his Jesuit friends would give their lives if by doing so they could attain the salvation of his soul.
However, we will not reflect the entire truth if we fail to consider the long conversation Fr. Balaguer had with Rizal about religious matters. Arguments, objections and refutations, with their strict appeal to reason and logic, were brought up during their discussion, as disclosed by Fr. Balaguer himself in his account.
In spite of all these, we still cannot rightfully say that Rizal owed his conversion to the influence of those good priests who were his former professors and friends, the sight of the image of the Sacred Heart that brought so many memories of the happy years of his boyhood, and the lively religious discussion he had with Fr. Balaguer. Neither can we truthfully say that his conversion was brought about by the special circumstances he was in, heightened by his imminent death.
God’s Grace
No external circumstance, no matter how special or extraordinary it may be, can cause a person’s conversion. Commenting on Retana’s allegation, J.M. Cavanna, CM, clearly explained this basic point.
“What happens after some event,” he said, “is not always due to that event. History proves that no amount of exterior circumstances can determine necessarily a conversion; and on the contrary, conversions may take place in the absence of the most powerful exterior stimuli and incentives.”
Of course, God can and does make use of human instruments and external circumstances to produce a conversion. Nevertheless, we have to affirm that a conversion is the exclusive work of God’s interior graces.
In Rizal’s case, we should not underestimate the supernatural efficacy of the prayers and penances offered by unidentified and unacknowledged members of religious communities to whom the Archbishop of Manila appealed in a circular, in his ardent zeal for Rizal’s conversion. With a few notable exceptions, our history books prefer to keep silent about such events.
AMDG
From: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>
To: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 1:54:24 PM
Subject: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
rose villaflor
If he retracted, how come he was still executed? Assuming that the authorities then cant do anything about the execution, why was he buried in the Chinese cemetery instead of the church cemetery? Isn't his retraction and escape from execution the greatest glory of the Catholic Church for showing her forgiveness and justice? |
Eduardo Gimenez
I WILL ADD THIS SHORT EXCHANGE WITH JAMES LITTON ON THE SAME SUBJECT. IT STARTED EARLIER TODAY WITH A QUESTION HE ADDRESSED TO ME: “What bothers me is this: If Jose Rizal retracted, who he not have been more valuable to the friars alive rather than dead?”
Jim,
Thanks. Sometimes I wake up in the morning sweating. A nightmare convinces me there are two distinct human species. One with logic and reason and the other without. “i”. The square root of negative one. Explain that now screams a chicken with a human head as I fall towards it from up in the clouds. Explain that or you’ll keep falling and crash to your death. My thoughts race converging on “I must be the species without…”
Then I explode and a thousand flying worms emerge and spread around the bright moon. Butterflies. Everyone a beautiful butterfly. But where am I? I have been renamed “Angui and Amador” the name of the species without...
Am I them, am I the species without…?
Am I them, am I the species without…?
Am I them, am I the species without…?
Love to all,
Danding
From: James Litton
[mailto:li...@skybroadband.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:25 PM
To: Eduardo Gimenez
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters
try to hide
Danding,
Thank you for your lucid explanation.
Who was it that said that mankind would not be free untile the last priest is hung by his neck on the last steeple of the last church?
Best wishes on the coming New Year. Keep on plugging for sanity and reason!
Jim
________________________
James,
Had he retracted they would have killed him anyway. Because Rizal was primarily a thinker, a philosopher, a student of history and of the nature of power. A retraction would have been meaningless to the friars because it would have been followed by another retraction once Rizal was touched once more by the injustices the friars would surely create again and again.
To the all-powerful church elite Rizal was that most dangerous of people. He was an implacably fearless thinking man. Even if it had been given by Rizal, the friars knew with total certainty they were going to act to force Rizal to retract his retraction. It no longer had anything to do with Rizal as much as it had to do with the friars themselves. It had to do with their inability to reverse themselves from the reality of their own evil deeds and intents. And the virtual certainty of even more flare-ups of evil deeds that would have brought Rizal back at their throats with even greater power.
Love to all,
Danding
From: James Litton
[mailto:li...@skybroadband.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 5:49 PM
To: Eduardo Gimenez
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters
try to hide
I only received the e-mail I sent you. No message from you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Eduardo Gimenez
To: 'James Litton'
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
From: James Litton
[mailto:li...@skybroadband.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:03 PM
To: edu...@yuken-usa.com
Subject: Fw: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters
try to hide
In my haste to send you the e-mail which appears at the end of this message, I mistakenly wrote what should correctly be written thus:
"What bothers me is this: If Jose Rizal truly retracted, would he not have been more valuable to the friars alive rather than dead?
----- Original Message -----
From: James Litton
To: Eduardo Gimenez
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
Danding,
What bothers me is this: If Jose Rizal retracted, who he not have been more valuable to the friars alive rather than dead?
JL
--
MANUEL almario
I apologize if I have rubbed you the wrong way. I certainly have deep admiration for you and your views. I too have illustrado friends, and their patriotism and nationalism cannot be questioned. I was speaking in general about the illustrado as a class. And certainly there are exceptions, not just a few but many, including Rizal and yourself. I thank you for that. Antonio Luna was one of them and he died for Philippine Independence.
I have been an admirer of Leon Guerrero and his sister, Carmen Guerrero Nakpil (with whom I had shared acquaintance in the regular coffee shop 365 forum at Hotel Continental in Makati). But I felt betrayed by their social and apparently political acceptance and toleration of the Marcos regime. When I wrote about the "indelible class stain of collaboration with any power, legitimate or illegitimate" of the illustrados, I knew right away that it was rather too strong an indictment, full of notable exceptions. Nevertheless, many historians, even from among the illustrados themselves, would not consider this statement totally flawed.
But Leon Guerrero's convoluted rationalization of the assertion that Rizal had retracted is a recurring volley that will reverberate down the generations of Filipinos, poisoning their minds against the Greatest Filipino ever, yes, poisoning the mind of my grandson who, having studied in a Catholic school since kindergarten, had only a hazy knowledge of Rizal and his ideas. It is a volley that shatters the very foundation of nationalism. To be sure, some would say, why send my grandson to a Catholic school? I argued against it. Myself educated in a public school in the province and a secular university in Manila, I knew that Catholic schools are not necessarily superior. Still, given the state of public schooling in Metro Manila, one may have some doubts.
Sure, all of us individuals have flaws. I am not myself invulnerable. Who is? But to deserve veneration and respect, one must at least be consistent with the thread of one's reputation that earned such respect. What if Rizal had retracted, lived and then collaborated with the Spaniards, and later welcomed the Americans with open arms after their victory as many illustrados did? Would he deserve the love, veneration and respect that we now bestow on him? He would instead be a tragic figure, instead of being triumphant in death.
Sincerely, Manny Almario
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 1:01:36 PM
Subject: RE: Rizal's Retraction: A plain fact of history Church-haters try to hide
poch suzara
Come on you guys and gals - Rizal died sober and not drunk with Catholic lies; indeed, cheap lies as inspired by silly bible childish messages.
Poch Suzara
From: rose villaflor <rtvil...@yahoo.com>
To: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com; Ricardo B. Boncan <dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu>
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 14:40:44
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
MANUEL almario
You are right. Anything elicited out of duress is not valid. That is why a confession made under torture or threat is not acceptable in court. And the Jesuits also threatened him with hellfire, as if Rizal was not aware of this cant, having been educated at Ateneo and raised in a Catholic society, when he wrote his essays attacking Church doctrines and abuses. To declare that Rizal recanted like a coward at the face of death is anti-Filipino. Manny Almario
From: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>
To: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 1:54:24 PM
Eduardo Gimenez
Dear Manny,
I never took even the slightest offense and completely understood your reference to the “true Spanish-mestizo… with its indelible class stain…”. I was one of those and didn’t even know it. I had rights emanating only from the Spanish side of my bloodlines and not from any special talents. I had access to the best jobs because of what I was rather than what I knew. I detested that. I knew it was completely fraudulent and I was a total fraud. What you described in that short sentence was me before I became me. Before I remade myself into the person I am. The one detested by others of my race and class… by the Manolo’s and the Angui’s of this world for whom I am now the devil incarnate.
When I first met you in these pages and quickly learned about your professional pedigree as “a journalist who must be jailed because he cannot be bought” it became instantly clear I was in front of someone extraordinarily special. The psychological and physical torture you endured in the Marcos dictatorship’s gulags reminded me of who I wanted to be but couldn’t because I neither had the talent nor the courage. I fled the Philippines after Marcos defeated Osmeña because I saw dictator’s dark cloud hoverin over Marcos during that election. You need to understand fully what I did. I fled. To flee is the act of a coward. I was fearful precisely that what happened to you would have happened to me.
I was also seeing even worse omens that bode ill for my yet unborn offspring. I was seeing a population increasing geometrically and ensuing social paroxysms around the corner. I had just married the love of my life and I had to protect her and whatever children she would bear us. The Philippines frightened me. Marcos frightened me. The future for my wife frightened me. The future for my yet non-existent children frightened me. So like a frightened jackrabbit, I bolted the fence and entered the center of the galaxy where the people were far more cruel and warlike. I reasoned it out simply this way. “From my new perch in the center of the galaxy I can do more good than from the backwoods that were the Philippines. My children can excel here and multiply the good we could do for the world.
It wasn’t easy because no amount of rationalization could wash away the clear fact I had taken the coward’s way. This is what I was alluding to when I said: “there is no harsher judge of self than self itself.” I will not defend Leon Ma. Guerrero or Chitang because I honestly know not enough about the corpus of their work. But what I did and will do again and again is pay homage to acts of honor as I saw Peewee and Gabby do when they arose to defend kin. Honor is one of those human characteristics that was once common and is now nearly extinct. Whenever I see it, my heart is cheered.
A M Gonzalez
| To declare that Rizal recanted like a coward at the face of death is anti-Filipino. |
| My, my Manny Almario, where's the logic in this phrase of yours? You've been taking too many classes from Danding!!!! What's wrong with recanting? Does recanting mean one's a coward? Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino? Your rant indicates a problem in your core. Is it that you feel betrayed by Rizal? Rizal the greatest of all nationalist Filipinos is your hero and mine. So far so good, eh Manny - as you're every bit a Filipino as puto bungbong. So where's the problem? Rizal recanted & was married by a priest! The man walked to his execution a theist! Your hero, our hero died a theist. But how can that be if you are not a theist? You're an atheist? What torment, eh, Manny Almario? As good patriotic, advanced Filipinos we'd best emulate Rizal, right? In emulating Rizal, consider that as a the thinking, logical person that he was, Rizal prayed for the gift of faith and he embraced it. Like Rizal did, embrace the faith Manny & you'll then understand that to recant doesn't mean you are a coward, a traitor or anti Filipino. Manolo --- On Wed, 12/29/10, MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
angel arando
You are so right Manolo Gonzalez –for calling the attention of our friend Manny Almario, as with regards his bias and nuances as to one’s actions and ‘stand ‘taken’ and or retaken liked that of our baptized and ‘confirmed’ National hero Jose Rizal did. Who also showed us his good example of a real leader – to know one’s mistakes and to know, seek and live with the truth, which am afraid some of our trying hard to be wanna-be atheists regardless, do not seem or want to comprehend
That the truth always at the end of the day supersedes
To ‘Recant’ as Manny Almario refers to what Jose Rizal voluntarily did and return to folds of his faith -- should not be used to malign the latter as a ‘coward’ or for that matter similarly brand HE Ambassador Leon Ma. Guerrero who justifiably wrote about it; and did support what is on record. We will not go through here on the luminary and ‘caballero’ qualities of renowned and well recognized Filipino historian/writer , Leon Maria Guerrero. Lorenzo Pee wee Guerrero could only repeat what is factual.
What and who I cannot understand is Manny Almario with regards the points he raises.
For a fact. we also dealt with the same question he raised sometime ago; and which was proven him that indeed Jose Rizal, like all of us had his own faults --National Hero or not -- like is pertinent to the Human race. I understand that Manny Almario even sought the ‘confirmation’ of one of our current historian Ambeth Ocampo as to the ‘idiosyncrasies’ of him whom Leon Ma. Guerrero hails to be “The First Filipino” --and for sure where positive view of the ‘anatomy of a true hero’ is clearly offered by foremost author Leon Maria Guerrero .
In short –to recant and./or renounce a former belief and/or statement as erroneous --is NO SIGN OF A COWARD AT ALL -- BUT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ONE’S ADMIRABLE CHARACTER OF A BRAVE MAN AS JOSE RIZAL PROVED HIMSELF TO BE, WHEN HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR COUNTRY AND ‘PEOPLE’
One thing though – our friend Manny Almario should take into account when often speaking out of turn, on such subjects where history has confirmed it be so true.
Not to ‘broad brush’ every one or anything that has references to faith, free will and/or Church and or the tints of Spain or Spanish –as to who is a true Filipino
It just shows how un-secure the man is and unfortunately; it continues to show on misinformed alleged historians –who are in conflict with themselves and what misinformed if not misconceive ideologies they tend to represent!
There is still time Manny Almario -- for you too -- to Recant if not Renounce your own allegations to what it is that is still eating you up.
Jose Rizal had the balls to do it.
Do you?
Keep the faith – angui
Louie Fernandez
Eduardo Gimenez
To Angui and to Manolo,
Despite your wealth, neither of you is fit to tie the laces in Almario’s shoes. You don’t have the intellect, the character, or the courage. You are fluff with little substance. But fret not because just as nature has a place for the magnificent tiger, likewise it has made a place for the lowly slug.
Danding
From: angel arando
[mailto:ara...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:13 AM
To: 'A M Gonzalez'; 'Louie Fernandez'; 'Lorenzo Guerrero'; 'Manny
Amador'; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com; 'MANUEL almario'
Cc: 'Eduardo Gimenez'; 'poch suzara'; river...@aol.com; 'Libreo Isip';
'Rene'; 'Ricardo B. Boncan'; 'Lionel Tierra'; frank_...@hotmail.com;
alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com;
hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com;
li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com;
pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com;
fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com;
lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com;
efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com;
juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com;
chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com;
dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com;
norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com;
romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com;
manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com;
tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; 'firstprinciples'; 'Gabriel Ma.
Guerrero'; 'Teddy Tan'
Subject: RE: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies,
Scandal, and Deceptions
You are so right Manolo Gonzalez –for calling the attention of our friend Manny Almario, as with regards his bias and nuances as to one’s actions and ‘stand ‘taken’ and or retaken liked that of our baptized and ‘confirmed’ National hero Jose Rizal did. Who also showed us his good example of a real leader – to know one’s mistakes and to know, seek and live with the truth, which am afraid some of our trying hard to be wanna-be atheists regardless, do not seem or want to comprehend
Eduardo Gimenez
Louie,
In February of 2009 I was in my hospital bed at the University of Chicago Center for Advanced Medicine awaiting surgery scheduled for the next morning. I had received numerous calls from brothers and sisters worried about the state of my soul, and who were pressing me to go to confession. My wife finally arranged it and I relented. The priest came. He was youngish, very black, late-30s, and he told me he was from Kenya. He was dressed to the “T’s” in one of the most expensive princely frocks I had seen bedecking a priest. “Here was a man who definitely wanted to become a cardinal” I thought. He asked me if I wanted to confess. I said yes. He unrolled his stole and draped it on his shoulders.
I opened the conversation with a jest of a question. “Why are you here in America? Are you here to save American souls or to make enough money and points to become a Bishop? By how you’re dressed it looks to me like you are nearly there.” That was just the start of a confession that took nearly half an hour and that was mainly him defending the hierarchy from analogies to the Pharisees who Christ despised. At the end he commented how that was the strangest confession he had ever witnessed and how he was going to give me his absolution anyway. As he was giving me the absolution, I interrupted him briefly with: “Please give me God’s absolution too. If you can.”
Somehow I can envision Rizal doing something similar. All the witnesses could have said about my confession was that I was with the priest for half an hour.
Here is a fact about confession. If there is a God as I believe there is one, my task is to establish a direct relationship with him. Not through a priestly lawyer because most priestly lawyers are like my richly-dressed hospital confessor who only wants to make money and get a bishop’s miter.
Love to all,
Danding
river...@aol.com
Let me share to you what the bible says about confession. The bible
does not teach believers (Christians) to confess their sins to priests
but directly to God. Here is David's confession of his sins (adultery
and murder) as he wrote in Psalm 32: 1-5, "Blessed is he whose
transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no
deceit. When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning
all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my
strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. Then I acnowledged my sin
to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my
transgressions to the Lord" and you forgave the guilt of my sin." A
priest cannot give absolution, only God can forgive sins. You expressed
desire to establish a direct relationship with God. God in the person
of Jesus Christ also desires to have a direct and personal
relationship with you.
Happy New Year!
Ben Rivera
Subject: About confessions
Louie, In Februaryof 2009 I was in my hospital bed at the University of
Chicago Center forAdvanced Medicine awaiting surgery scheduled for the
next morning. I hadreceived numerous calls from brothers and sisters
worried about the state of mysoul, and who were pressing me to go to
confession. My wife finally arrangedit and I relented. The priest
came. He was youngish, very black, late-30s,and he told me he was from
Kenya. He was dressed to the “T’s” in one of themost expensive
princely frocks I had seen bedecking a priest. “Here was a manwho
definitely wanted to become a cardinal” I thought. He asked me if I
wantedto confess. I said yes. He unrolled his stole and draped it on
his shoulders. I opened theconversation with a jest of a question.
“Why are you here in America? Are youhere to save American souls or to
make enough money and points to become aBishop? By how you’re dressed
it looks to me like you are nearly there.” Thatwas just the start of
a confession that took nearly half an hour and that wasmainly him
defending the hierarchy from analogies to the Pharisees who
Christdespised. At the end he commented how that was the strangest
confession he hadever witnessed and how he was going to give me his
absolution anyway. As hewas giving me the absolution, I interrupted
him briefly with: “Please give meGod’s absolution too. If you
can.” Somehow I canenvision Rizal doing something similar. All the
witnesses could have saidabout my confession was that I was with the
priest for half an hour. Here is afact about confession. If there is
a God as I believe there is one, my task isto establish a direct
relationship with him. Not through a priestly lawyer becausemost
priestly lawyers are like my richly-dressed hospital confessor who
onlywants to make money and get a bishop’s miter. Love to all, Danding
Ricardo B. Boncan
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
Eduardo Gimenez
Why is it that every Christian thinks he has to teach religion to everyone else? Every Christian automatically assumes he or she knows more about religion than I do. And therefore needs to teach me his or her vaster knowledge of religion. Every Catholic knows more than every Lutheran. Every Baptist knows more than every Presbyterian.
It is axiomatic in Christianity that whoever I may be, I know more than you. Therefore whoever you may be, Rivera knows more than you.
Danding
poch suzara
Why don't you look at yourself in
the mirror? As a Filipino reflect why you and your religious gang know hardly anything down to earth about our greatest hero - Jose Rizal? Why you all simply have no room in your hearts for Jose Rizal because you all have been educated to love, worship, and adore instead a Jewish foreigner known as Jesus. Indeed, the same Son of God Jesus who declared:
"If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethrern, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
As with me, as a Filipino, I love, worship, and adore our Jose Rizal. He never preached such holy family baloney - such as the family that prays together, stays together.
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:21:48
A M Gonzalez
| You are right, Danding, I am but of little substance. Despite this little substance, despite my lack of knowledge, I search for the truth. This search for the truth is precisely why it is so much fun to spot your incoherence, logical fallacies and hypocrisy. Here: 1. What does one's wealth have to do with tying Almario's shoes? This logical fallacy is called Red Herring. One's wealth is of no consequence in your contention 2. This first fallacy invalidates your argument but there is more to it. For instance, you imply that you fault a man for being rich. If you do, then you are again being illogical. Or is being rich necessarily bad? If you are implying it is, then you commit Non Sequitur and Dicto Simpliciter. 3. Point 2 opens up other possibilities. As you've often defended Socialism it is indeed possible that you fault the rich or you despise the rich. If you truly do, then you're also a hypocrite since you're rich too and you haven't given up your riches! 4. Point 3 brings on another possibility, perhaps you are only invidious***? Since you've made a mess at defending Manny Almario with your lack of logic, try these questions on for size: |
What's wrong with recanting? Does recanting mean one's a coward? Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino? |
| Don't choke Manolo *** Using the lowly slug to compare to the magnificent tiger reinforces my observation that you are invidious. If we're all children of God, none of us could be a lowly slug! |
--- On Wed, 12/29/10, Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com> wrote: |
gi...@aol.com
did the friars try to have Rizal retracted only on December 29th, around 11:30
PM, 7 1/2 hours before his execution the next morning,- according to Fr. Balaguer?
weeks or even a month before his execution in order to give Rizal the time to
affirm or deny the alleged retraction? No, the friars would not take that
chance. Rizal must be dead before the publication of the alleged retraction.
Please note that what was published in the newspapers, immediately after
Rizal's death was the TEXT of the alleged retraction and not the PHOTOGRAPH of the
alleged retraction document because at that time there was no document yet, --either
forged or genuine, the friars failed to convert Rizal, and consequently failed to show any
document to the family of Rizal in spite of their repeated request. For a while the
Catholic Church claimed that the alleged document was lost and could not be
found after search in the Archives of the Archbishop. Such a very important
document, why would it be lost? Those who did not believe in the alleged
retraction had demanded the Catholic Church to produce the document. And on May
18, 1935, 39 years after the supposed alleged retraction was made, was "discovered"
in the Archives of the Archbishop. What happened to that document when they
were looking for it in the same place but could find it there?
poch suzara
Indeed, Jesus died for our sins. Should we not therefore elevate into a higher strata his great martyrdom by committing more sins?
Yes, let us all be proud of our Philippines - the only christian country in Asia since the 16th century. Let us all continue our faith and devotion in Jesus by committing not only more sins against our country, but also by committing more crimes against each other for the glory of God in heaven!
Poch Suzara
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:19:46
Subject: Re: About Confessions
river...@aol.com
that I know more than you do? All I did was to quote to you some bible
verses about confession. It was coming from the bible and so it was not
even my personal opinion. You can just say you agree or disagree with
the bible verses quoted but you have to ascribe "dark" motives on my
part as if you can "divine" someone's motives. For your information, it
is the duty of every Christian to share the good news of salvation (not
teach religion) thru faith in Jesus Christ. Relax and take it easy.
Life is too short to be angry (you seem to be angry).
Happy New Year!
Ben Rivera
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
<firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; gma_guerrero
<gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; sttoic <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 3:16 pm
Subject: RE: About Confessions
Subject: Re: About ConfessionsDanding:Let me share to you what the
bible says about confession. The bible does not teach believers
(Christians) to confess their sins to priests but directly to God. Here
is David's confession of his sins (adultery and murder) as he wrote in
Psalm 32: 1-5, "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose
sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count
against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. When I kept silent, my
bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night
your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of
summer. Then I acnowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my
iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord" and
you forgave the guilt of my sin." A priest cannot give absolution, only
God can forgive sins. You expressed desire to establish a direct
relationship with God. God in the person of Jesus Christ also desires
to have a direct and personal relationship with you.Happy New Year!Ben
Rivera
Subject: About confessionsLouie, In Februaryof 2009 I was in my
Eduardo Gimenez
Rivera: Why are you so defensive? Did I ever say (or even give the impression) that I know more than you do? All I did was to quote to you some bible
verses about confession.
Response: Yes you certainly did. The very act of "quoting some bible verses about confession" is a clear message that you know more than anyone else. And if you really read my message and are intelligent enough to understand it, there is absolutely no way you could have concluded I "was being defensive". I was actually being as offensive as I could be without going so far as to call you a horses ass.
Danding
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum: “You are right, Danding, I am but of little substance”
Response: Good. So you agree that I got you pegged right as pure fluff. So keep your trap shut while the big boys with substance speak.
Danding
A M Gonzalez
| Bwhahahahahahahahaaaaa And take away all our fun????? Spotting your incoherence, logical fallacies and hypocrisy is outrageously fun! Bwhahahahahahahahhahaaaaa Manolo PS Why hasn't your "self proclaimed capacity to think critically" enabled you to answer the following questions posed to Manny Almario: |
What's wrong with recanting? Does recanting mean one's a coward? Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino? |
MANUEL almario
There is no better accolade that anybody can give you than to say that you are an honest man. I do not mean just financially, which is what many believe honesty should simply be. But morally and intellectually. To thyself be true, and you will thus be true to every other men. This is, if I remember, correctly, from Shakespeare's Hamlet. But a poet need not say it to make it true, for every man knows it to be true.
I think that you judge yourself too harshly about your motivations for going to the States. I have a brother physician, a son and a grandson in the U.S. They are now American citizens. My son had married a Filipina-American who was his college sweetheart here. I am happy that he is there, having a good job, and not having to live a life of economic uncertainty here, where a government or a business executive can hardly earn enough to buy a home and a car, and look forward to a comfortable pension. As I have said, much earlier in this forum, we are all creatures of circumstances. of race, family and country, and we act according to the specific circumstances that we face which are not necessarily of our doing.
Journalism is basically just a means of livelihood, like carpentry. There is not much there is to it than a false glamor. But there is a passion in me of nationalism. Every man craves dignity and respect. But he cannot have dignity nor the respect of citizens of other countries unless his country is strong and progressive. The Chinese were looked down upon not so long ago, until China rose to become politically independent and economically potent. So was Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia, and other emerging countries. I want my country to be the same so I could have respect, and our children will have respect, and my countrymen will not be ostracized in the immigration offices of the foreign airports they find themselves in. Rizal had this view: he could not be great until his country and countrymen are great. And so I retire, a dissatisfied old man, except for the feeling that I have tried, albeit feebly. But you and I, Poch and Mar, Bob and Louie, and the others, have fought and continue to fight to the end, in our little corner, little known, but with as few regrets as possible as we make our final exit.
Cheers and Happy New Year to ALL.
Manny Almario
I appreciate your postings here and I have learned a lot from them. No matter how old we are - even as we near the exit -- we always learn new things. And we learn from each other.
From: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
To: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
Cc: poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
MANUEL almario
Rizal is no hero to you. No one can be a hero if he recants or rejects all he had thought and expressed and held to be the truth in the face of death. Manny Almario
From: A M Gonzalez <battli...@yahoo.com>
To: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 7:03:34 PM
MANUEL almario
From: angel arando <ara...@btconnect.com>
To: A M Gonzalez <battli...@yahoo.com>; Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 9:12:52 PM
Subject: RE: On the Death of Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
Now is the time to read about his alleged retraction. We owe this greatest of all Filipinos who gave up his life for us this much. Seldom will you see such an open and truly most fascinating set of exchanges below. Perhaps only in the AlumniBlueEagle e-group will you be able to read this. Most other moderators of Ateneo e-groups gladly tolerate, if not encourage, warmongering, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, redneck, birther, nutty Tea Party forwards and such, but would most likely summarily delist those who'd dare post political messages they don't agree with. Such is a censorial legacy of our the clerico-fascists who continue to dominate the Philippines . Is it any wonder why we are considered to be the Sick Man of Asia economically, culturally, democratically, and spiritually with people like them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A M Gonzalez
| Honestly, Manny, I implore you to stop taking classes in logic from Danding. Your following statement is illogical: |
| Rizal is no hero to you. |
How can you deduce that Rizal is not my hero? |
| No one can be a hero if he recants or rejects all he had thought and expressed and held to be the truth in the face of death. |
| This second statement is as big an absurdity as your first statement. I will demonstrate it for you: Let as take Rizal as a declared atheist. He is your hero because he shares your atheistic conviction. But what happens if your hero recants? You declare he can not be a hero because all of a sudden his long supported truth (atheism) is no longer true! This is the height of your absurdity Manny. You are unable to entitle anyone the right to change their mind! You as a totalitarian can not give Rizal the liberty to change his mind because if you do, your truth crumbles. Look for the truth as did Rizal, Manny and like he, you will have plenitude! Manolo |
Manny Amador
This is my take on the issue of Leon Ma. Guerrero.
We should remember that Danding's propensity for mangling the truth is of titanic proportions and is evident in nrealt every post he makes on this forum. The man is a p[roiven liar. Nothing he says here -- especially about his object of intense hatred, namely the Church -- should be taken at face value. As we have seen here repeatedly, nearly every accusation he levels against the Church is a pure fabrication or an exaggeration.
In contrast, Leon Ma. Guerrero's reaseach on Rizal -- even on the retraction issue -- is solid and irrefutable. That Rizal had the courage and honesty to retract is a great credit to our national hero, despite the despicable efforts of Church-haters to distort the truth and remake him in their image, is something we should learn from.
God bless!
Please sign the online petition supporting the pro-life bill (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/
--[Manny Amador]------------------------------------[ma...@phnix.net]--
Alternative Information and Opinions at mamador.wordpress.com
Member: Pro-Life Philippines (http://www.prolife.org.ph)
Manny Amador
And take away all our fun????? Spotting your incoherence, logical fallacies and hypocrisy is outrageously fun!
It sure is. Deceitful Danding is just so full of hypocrisy, lies, and illogical twists and turns. We should use his posts to teach about logical fallacies and how NOT to argue.
PS Why hasn't your "self proclaimed capacity to think critically" enabled you to answer the following questions posed to Manny Almario:
What's wrong with recanting?
Does recanting mean one's a coward?
Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino?
Great of you to point these out, Manolo. The answer, of course, is that Decetiful Danding has never had any honest answers or logical arguments. That hateful and lecherous old man is a joke. He is no match for you.
God bless!
poch suzara
And take away all our fun????? Spotting your incoherence, logical fallacies and hypocrisy is outrageously fun!
It sure is. Deceitful Danding is just so full of hypocrisy, lies, and illogical twists and turns. We should use his posts to teach about logical fallacies and how NOT to argue.
In the meantime, in this only Christian country in Asia, our schools, colleges, and universities are places where stones are saved, and diamonds are damned. Poch Suzara
PS Why hasn't your "self proclaimed capacity to think critically" enabled you to answer the following questions posed to Manny Almario:
What's wrong with recanting?
Does recanting mean one's a coward?
Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino?
Great of you to point these out, Manolo. The answer, of course, is that Decetiful Danding has never had any honest answers or logical arguments. That hateful and lecherous old man is a joke. He is no match for you.
God bless!
Eduardo Gimenez
Dear All,
I will list down the Dogmas of the Catholic faith as they are currently constituted. Because there are so many, I will list them in stages and in sections. The purpose is to subject these dogmas to critical analysis and to see which can stand the rigors of reason and logic. Here is the first group (44 out of a total of 252 dogmas):
The Unity and Trinity of God
- God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.
- God's existence is not merely an object of rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith.
- God's Nature is incomprehensible to men.
- The blessed in Heaven possess an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence.
- The immediate vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural.
- The soul, for the immediate vision of God, requires the light of glory.
- God's Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven.
- The divine attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence.
- God is absolutely perfect.
- God is actually infinite in every perfection.
- God is absolutely simple.
- There is only one God.
- The one God is, in the ontological sense, the true God.
- God possesses an infinite power of cognition.
- God is absolute veracity.
- God is absolutely faithful.
- God is absolute ontological goodness in Himself and in relation to others.
- God is absolute moral goodness or holiness.
- God is absolute benignity.
- God is absolutely immutable.
- God is eternal.
- God is immense or absolutely immeasurable.
- God is everywhere present in created space.
- God's knowledge is infinite.
- God's knowledge is purely and simply actual.
- God's knowledge is subsistent.
- God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
- God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
- By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.
- God's Divine Will is infinite.
- God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
- God is almighty.
- God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth.
- God is infinitely just.
- God is infinitely merciful.
- In God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
- In God there are two internal divine processions.
- The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the internal divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
- The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to Father.
- The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.
- The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.
- The relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
- The Three Divine Persons are in one another.
- All the ad extra activities of God are common to the three Persons.
Here is the first question. The first and the third dogmas obviously contradict each other. Since God’s nature is incomprehensible to man, it therefore is not possible for God to be known with certainty by the natural light of reason.
Here is a second question. There are many references to God and his attributes being “infinite”. Since we know from Georg Cantor’s mathematical analyses that there are many infinities, which of the many infinities are we talking about? If God is in the first order of infinity, then it is possible to posit superior Gods in a higher orders of infinity.
Here is the third question. If God’s nature is incomprehensible to man then how do the men of the church profess to know so much about God’s nature? How much of what they profess to know is true and how much is pure BS?
Take a look at these pieces of dogmatic BS the church tells us we must believe under pains of excommunication, stoning, burning and/or garroting. It is a fun exercise to look beyond the surface of some of these illogical bits of utter nonsense. I’m sure whoever looks at this partial list will find more logical inconsistencies than the three I highlighted.
Love to all,
Danding
poch suzara
Cheers!
Poch
Cc: poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:49:28
Subject: About the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith
angel arando
Eduardo Danding Gimenez --in his usual nonsensical contradictory rattling way says and we quote:
Here is a second question. There are many references to God and his attributes being “infinite”. Since we know from Georg Cantor’s mathematical analyses that there are many infinities, which of the many infinities are we talking about? If God is in the first order of infinity, then it is possible to posit superior Gods in a higher orders of infinity. Unquote
You should be one to be pontificating on ‘mathematical analyses’ –when to this day you are still struggling with the simple arithmetic formula taught you in your grade six elementary year on compounded percentages when referring to population growth –which to this day 50 or more years ago -- it is beyond you and dare you talk about infinity – finite as you are …. Or rather ‘finished’ as you are in reason --if ever …
Keep the faith –angui
Ps With good wishes and Trust you have a better year come 2011 and you get over whatever has bugged you when as a human embryo
Eduardo Gimenez
Message to every Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, etc: Infallible dogma says that only Catholics will make it to heaven. Get yourselves ready for some really hot days ahead.
The Roman Catholic Church dogmas
Doctrine of Salvation
VI. The Catholic Church
- The Catholic Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.
- Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
- Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
- The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.
- Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
- According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time.
- The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.
- The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
- The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
- By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
- Christ founded the Catholic Church.
- Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
- In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.
- The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.
- The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.
- The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
- The Church founded by Christ is holy.
- The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
- The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
- Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
angel arando
Eduardo Danding Gimenez is quick to comment on The Roman Catholic Church Dogmas –Doctrines and Salvation quote Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation. unquote
Reason why Eduardo Danding Gimenez still goes to confession and if and when necessary –the sacrament of Extreme Unction specially when facing the respective threat of sickness and/or death. when convenient .Other wise, best he stay the ‘Human’ Embryo he stillis –if he can doti.
Keep the faith --angui
river...@aol.com
to answer the questions you posed from a Christian (biblical)
perspective.
Question 1:The first and third dogmas obviously contradict each other.
Since God's nature is incomprehensible to man, it therefore is not
possible for God to be known with certainty by the natural light of
reason.
Response: God's nature or essence (e.g., omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, perfect, eternal, etc.) and His attributes (e.g., love,
just, holy, etc.) are comprehensible to man in two ways. First, from
God's creation and second, from God's special revelation thru the bible
and the coming of Jesus Christ. On creation, this is what the bible
says in Romans 1: 19-22, "Since what maybe known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of
the world God's invivsible qualities - his eternal power and divine
nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
created, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God,
they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their
thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although
they claimed to be wise, they became fools." God's creation is plain to
see and only a fool (according to the bible) will deny God's imprint on
creation. Even though marred by sin, we can still see beauty, order and
intelligent design in God's creation. Science confirms that the
universe is the work of God. With the telescope, we study the immensity
of space with its galaxies and star-systems or through the microscope,
we marvel at the intricate pattern of life scaled down to the minutest
dimensions. We wonder and are in awe at the exactness of natural laws
and at the miracle of design and beauty in every part of nature. God's
work of creation teaches us that God is perfect in wisdom, intelligence
and power. God also revealed Himself to man through the bible and the
coming of Jesus Christ. The bible purposely does not give a systematic
description of what God is because man is finite and cannot possibly
understand a God who is infinite. Any description of God must therefore
be inadequate but sufficient for man in terms of his spiritual needs.
Because of this, God chose a way to reveal the mystery of His nature
well within our grasp. God revealed His nature and attributes by His
acts. Thus the bible is a written account of the way God has acted down
the ages from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. The coming of
Jesus Christ as the God/man was the ultimate revelation of who God is
and this was confirmed by the writings of those that actually witnessed
His life, death, resurrection and the many miracles that He performed.
Other secular historians such as Josephus and Tacitus to name a few
also confirmed Jesus' existence as a historical reality.
Question #2: There are many references to God and His attributes being
infinite. Since we know from Georg Cantor's mathematical analyses that
there are many infinities, which of the many infinities are we talking
about?
Response: God's infinity is His being eternal (the First Cause, Self
Existing, God's Exitence is Forever) thus has nothing to do with
mathematical analyses or formulas. God's infinity cannot be reduced to
mere mathematical analyses.
Question #3: If God's nature is incomprehensible to man then how do the
men of the church profess to know so much about God's nature? How much
of what they profess to know is true and how much is pure BS?
Response: As indicated in my response to your question #1, God is
comprehensible to man. Christians know the truth by relying and
depending solely on God's Words as written in the scriptures as the
sole authority when it comes to spiritual matters.
Happy New Year!
Ben Rivera
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
To: 'Louie Fernandez' <lfer...@optonline.net>; 'Ricardo B. Boncan'
<dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu>; 'MANUEL almario' <mfal...@yahoo.com>;
'Lorenzo Guerrero' <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; 'Manny Amador'
<manny....@gmail.com>
Cc: 'poch suzara' <pochol...@yahoo.com>; rivera1211
<river...@aol.com>; 'Libreo Isip' <isip...@yahoo.com>; 'Arando'
<ara...@btconnect.com>; 'A M' <battli...@yahoo.com>; 'Rene'
<firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; 'Gabriel Ma. Guerrero'
<gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; 'Teddy Tan' <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 10:49 am
Subject: About the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith
A M Gonzalez
| Amen Ben. Amen Manolo --- On Thu, 12/30/10, river...@aol.com <river...@aol.com> wrote: |
|
river...@aol.com
having a personal relationship with God. The bible states, " For it is
by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can
boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. Isn't it wonderful that salvation is a gift
from God and we don't have to work for it? All other religions (except
Christianity) teach that salvation requires good works. Once saved, a
Christian is expected to do good works (not to earn salvation) but as a
manifestation of a genuine faith and to show our love and gratitude to
God for the gift of eternal life. "For we are God's workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance
for us to do." Ephesians 2:10. I hope that you have accepted the gift
of salvation especially during this Christmas season of giving. All one
has to do to accept the gift of salvation is to acknowledge that you
are a sinner and repent of all your sins, believe in the person and
work of Jesus Christ and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord and
Savior. That's it! It is easy for us because Jesus had done all the
works for us.
Sent: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 1:52 pm
Subject: Infallible Dogma... Membership of the Catholic Church is
necessary for all men for salvation.
Messageto every Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, etc: Infallible dogma
says that onlyCatholics will make it to heaven. Get yourselves ready
for some really hotdays ahead.The Roman Catholic Church dogmas
Doctrine of SalvationVI. The Catholic Church The Catholic Church
Eduardo Gimenez
Rivera,
Almost everything you said is opinion unconnected with reason that comes straight out of church dogma. My own opinion is different. To me God is a non-being being about which nothing true can be said. It would be just as false to say that God is good as to say that God is evil... because God created both good and evil and spread it about evenly throughout his creation. There are roughly equal measures of good and evil in God's creation.
Besides, get this buddy. Why should I listen to you when you aren't even a Catholic and you will fry in hell in accordance with infallible Catholic dogma? Why should I believe someone who is about to be barbecued in an eternal fire fed by tons of human manure?
Go and peddle your protestant wares elsewhere. I am a Catholic and I will make it to a higher heaven and to a higher infinity than "Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest" (aka Amador, Manolo and Angui).
Danding
-----Original Message-----
From: river...@aol.com [mailto:river...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 5:54 PM
To: edu...@yuken-usa.com; lfer...@optonline.net; dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu; mfal...@yahoo.com; lorenzog...@gmail.com; manny....@gmail.com
Eduardo Gimenez
Rivera: Salvation according to the scriptures is not through religion but having a personal relationship with God.
Response: You're doomed Ricardo. Doomed to the 9th level of Dante's inferno. The Catholic Church makes this clear. You aren't a Catholic and only Catholics will make it to heaven according to infallible Catholic Church dogma.
What's this scripture shit? The Catholic Church is the only determinant of the true meaning of scripture. For example scripture says Mary had seven other children besides Jesus. That Joseph kept her a virgin until after Christ was born. Presumably he and Mary made lots and lots of whoopee after that. But the Catholic Church says no. That all that scriptural nonsense about Mary and Joseph making whoopee wasn't true and that Mary was "ever-virgin". Despite the many scripture references the Catholic Church says "wrong" therefore the scriptures are wrong.
So don't quote me scriptures again unless you become a Catholic once more. The way things are right now buddy, you are headed on a straight line to hell.
And that is that.
Danding
-----Original Message-----
From: firstpr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:firstpr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of river...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:50 PM
To: edu...@yuken-usa.com; lfer...@optonline.net; dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu; mfal...@yahoo.com; lorenzog...@gmail.com; manny....@gmail.com
Cc: pochol...@yahoo.com; isip...@yahoo.com; ara...@btconnect.com; battli...@yahoo.com; rv...@yahoo.com; nelt...@gmail.com; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstpr...@googlegroups.com; gma_gu...@yahoo.com; stt...@gmail.com
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firstprincipl...@googlegroups.com
MANUEL almario
Cc: poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 2:26:01 PM
Subject: RE: You are fluff with little substance.
A M Gonzalez
| Questions to Manny Almario: 1. What's wrong with recanting? 2. Does recanting mean one's a coward? 3. Why would recanting mean Rizal is anti-Filipino? |
To
recant is to admit that what one has said was untrue; that either you
were lying or misled or that you were wrong. To recant what he had
written or proclaimed would have lessened Rizal for it was for those
very declarations that Rizal was honored. Manny Almario |
Response to Manny Almario: 1. Recanting, according to you, therefore, does not make it automatically bad. If one is misled to think one way & has erred or discovers he's been fooled, recanting corrects a wrong & embraces what is right! This is wisdom not cowardice. 2. We know Rizal to be among the bravest of the brave with exemplary wisdom so why couldn't he have rectified? This wouldn't make him a coward or lessened his accomplishments - remember we're talking tangible accomplishments - things he'd already done. 3. By recanting, Rizal is no way a lesser Filipino. Saying Rizal recanted isn't anti Filipino. Those who call Leon Ma. Guerrero a traitor for saying Rizal recanted must be reminded that on the contrary, Rizal is even greater than he has ever been given credit for - he died a martyr believing in God and believing in the Filipino. Manolo |
angel arando
Sorry my friend Manny Almario –to recant for his (our hero’s) declarations and whatever were his human errors past -- as if in a ‘confession’ and public at that … Not to mention the special given moment as so chosen – by him –our National Hero in question --- has indeed made the’ First Filipino;’ the true National Hero in the over all.
Not to forget to mention that indeed he was the hero during his time and what we can empathize during ours.
As it is too, with the many good heroes we as a proud race have; and no doubt will continue to have. Be it with ‘feet of clay ‘ as all humans have (What size of tsi nelas you wear Manny Almario –if only by the by?)
On the contrary —one would add that Rizal’s true forswear renouncement as he timely made it just before his death to inspire a beautiful last “Goodbye to his God and Country”£ (Ultimo Adios) is what made a once upon-a time beleaguered with inferiority complex adolescent boy from Calamba; who indeed had for a model hero a no smaller man than the great Napoleon Bonaparte with all his total shortcomings too – physical and what nots -- which but influenced Rizal’s own complex as to his ‘ own psychological structure’ so to speak ---- is what really made the man the coward you seem to insinuate he was for recanting.
Sorry Manny Almario and whoever –whomever thinks so. Brave and true FILIPINO MAN HE WAS AND WILL BE IN HIS PEROSNAL HISTORY AS WRITTEN IN THE HISTORY OF HIS BELOVED COUNTRY BY HISTORIANS AND WRITERS THE QUALITY OF THE Leon Maria Guererros of this our many coloured Pinoy world.
I do not…... for more than Jose Rizal there still ….. One I have as still a much greater Hero who voluntarily did die for all of us (mankind) – including Jose Rizal who but only could mimick Him and why indeed the reason Jose Rizal recanted. –and that be Christ -=-the God –Man .
That too, my doubting friend Mannny Almario is part and parcel of our history as a country and people and am sure will continue , regardless
You see my friend Manny Almario – Rizal had faith too –and gifted reason ,that most of us in this blog put together do not.
To top it all, Rizal like the good Christ (although at times hesitatingly) expressed ‘their’ very ‘free will’. NO –not ‘Free Choice’! But Free Will for Pro Life i.e. that we live and let others live accordingly to their own dictate of free will, regardless.
That be in our small way recognize the ‘real sterner stuff’ in all heroes indeed… and what they are made of :
. The respect and love for oneself and the respect and love for other’s love because the Christ loves us and the world while Rizal loved himself - his people and country --and yes something more, perhaps more Christ like too; as Rizal eventually learned to respect the lives of others too.
It should be easier for us with said good teachers…to do and follow
. Do you not think so Manny Almario?
Have a good coming 2011 year and many more but try keep the faith –if only as Rizal did -- angui
From:
MANUEL almario [mailto:mfal...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 31 December 2010 08:43
To: A M Gonzalez; angel arando;
Louie Fernandez; Lorenzo Guerrero; Manny Amador;
alumniB...@yahoogroups.com; Eduardo Gimenez
Cc: poch suzara;
river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip; Rene; Ricardo B. Boncan; Lionel Tierra; frank_...@hotmail.com;
alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com;
hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph;
rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com;
public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com;
socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com;
fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com;
jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com;
chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com;
dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com;
nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com;
gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com;
chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com;
manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net;
connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples;
Gabriel Ma. Guerrero; Teddy Tan
Subject: Re: You are fluff with
little substance.
To recant is to admit that what one has said was untrue; that either you were lying or misled or that you were wrong. To recant what he had written or proclaimed would have lessened Rizal for it was for those very declarations that Rizal was honored. Manny Almario
A M Gonzalez
| Outstanding Danding! I gather you are now the official & chief spokesman for the Catholic Church. As I don't want to be damned what else am I to do? Bwahahahahahahahaa Manolo PS Honestly, shouldn't you leave the horseshit where it should be? |
--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com> wrote: |
angel arando
Rivera I need not tell you not to believe in what Eduardo Danding Gimenez is saying or trying to say and be understood.
Whether you be Catholic or not or what ever –just don’t be a liar like he is and presently trying to pass on to you his lies on the RC church
Am sure you had sazzed up Eduardo Danding Gimenez --even then –regardles s how many of his how manywanna bes take up hisl line –I mean lies.
Happy New |Year – keep on with the enlightenment you give me(no doubt us) -- I willtry and still keep my fiath for next year and hope fully more with your good well;-meant enlightening words –angui
<firstprinc...@googlegroups.com>; 'Gabriel Ma. Guerrero'
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firstprinciples+...@googlegroups.com
To post to this group, send email to firstprinc...@googlegroups.com.
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum: . What's wrong with recanting?
Response: For the dumb and the dumber like Angui and you there is nothing wrong with recanting. For the bright and the brighter there is something intrinsically wrong with the idea of having moved so far ahead of where you were in your sixth grade, to then be forced to move back to your sixth grade state because a stupid priest had a cocked gun to your head.
All life is about advancing and advancing and advancing. It isn’t about standing still locked in the same stupid the church had created for the dumb, the dumber and the dumbest. That is where you and Angui are. You have the exact same absurd belief system you had then.
Rizal’s Noli and Fili proved beyond any doubt he had divested himself of those silly church dogmas. It is highly unlikely a man of his caliber would have gone back to his sixth-grade state by recanting the enormous intellectual advances he had made. The only way he could have recanted would have been under extreme duress.
Without doubt he was under extreme duress. There could be no more extreme duress than to be under the real threat of death. He had a cocked gun pointed right at his heart. No act made under such extreme conditions can possibly have any real meaning except for the clear fact they were mere acts of man obeying instincts of self-preservation.
They were not “human acts” made consciously and freely by a person with choices. They were “acts of man” as instinctive and as automatic as a starving man grabbing a chicken leg from his son’s hand. They were acts with no ethical or moral meaning. The priests if they did succeed in getting him to recant, got nothing of any value. Because whatever is secured under extreme duress is of such great evil that it has no good value whatsoever.
The recanting, if it truly happened, had no real moral and ethical meaning because of the extreme condition to which Rizal had been brought to by his evil and cruel executioners and their priests.
May they all rot in hell.
Danding
gi...@aol.com
did the friars try to have Rizal retracted only on December 29th, around 11:30
PM, 7 1/2 hours before his execution the next morning,- according to Fr. Balaguer?
weeks or even a month before his execution in order to give Rizal the time to
affirm or deny the alleged retraction? No, the friars would not take that
chance. Rizal must be dead before the publication of the alleged retraction.
Please note that what was published in the newspapers, immediately after
Rizal's death was the TEXT of the alleged retraction and not the PHOTOGRAPH of the
alleged retraction document because at that time there was no document yet, --either
forged or genuine, the friars failed to convert Rizal, and consequently failed to show any
document to the family of Rizal in spite of their repeated request. For a while the
Catholic Church claimed that the alleged document was lost and could not be
found after search in the Archives of the Archbishop. Such a very important
document, why would it be lost? Those who did not believe in the alleged
retraction had demanded the Catholic Church to produce the document. And on May
18, 1935, 39 years after the supposed alleged retraction was made, was "discovered"
in the Archives of the Archbishop. What happened to that document when they
were looking for it in the same place but could find it there?
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; rivera1211 <river...@aol.com>; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_jimenez <frank_...@hotmail.com>; alumniblueeagle <alumnib...@yahoogroups.com>; louiefern <loui...@gmail.com>; hyndmanrobert <hyndma...@yahoo.co.com>; rickysobrevinas <rickyso...@yahoo.com>; litco <li...@skybroadband.com.ph>; rtvillaflor <rtvil...@yahoo.com>; jlp04 <jl...@yahoo.com>; pat.evangelista <pat.eva...@gmail.com>; public.lives <public...@gmail.com>; npestelos <npes...@gmail.com>; fgpestelos <fgpes...@yahoo.com>; socratesplatoaristotle <socratespla...@yahoo.com>; lapulapu_2000 <lapula...@yahoo.com>; juanlmercado <juanlm...@gmail.com>; fnemenzo <fnem...@gmail.com>; efren.padilla <efren....@csueastbay.edu>; elydejaresco <elydej...@yahoo.com>; jlp704 <jlp...@yahoo.com>; juanlmercado <juanlm...@gail.com>; passionforreason <passionf...@gmail.com>; chiefjusticepanganiban <chiefjustic...@hotmail.com>; friesontl <frie...@shaw.ca>; sceniap <sce...@yahoo.com>; dahli_a <dah...@yahoo.com>; dendrina <dend...@hotmail.com>; dealjun <dea...@yahoo.com>; noraa27 <nor...@aol.com>; norinemedina <norine...@yahoo.com>; gilpe <gi...@aol.com>; lumbacesar <lumba...@gmail.com>; romeo_medina2004 <romeo_me...@yahoo.com>; chachamedina <chacha...@yahoo.com>; mylo_star <mylo...@yahoo.com>; manuelbondad <manuel...@yahoo.com>; manuelpatalinjug <manuelpa...@yahoo.com>; bernardodecalba <bernard...@yahoo.com>; tanjutco <tanj...@pldtdsl.net>; connie_almonte <connie_...@yahoo.com>; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
From: Ricardo B. BoncanCc: Eduardo Gimenez ; poch suzara ; river...@aol.com ; Libreo Isip ; Arando ; A M ; Rene ; Lionel Tierra ; frank_...@hotmail.com ; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com ; loui...@gmail.com ; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com ; rickyso...@yahoo.com ; li...@skybroadband.com.ph ; rtvil...@yahoo.com ; jl...@yahoo.com ; pat.eva...@gmail.com ; public...@gmail.com ; npes...@gmail.com ; fgpes...@yahoo.com ; socratespla...@yahoo.com ; lapula...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gmail.com ; fnem...@gmail.com ; efren....@csueastbay.edu ; elydej...@yahoo.com ; jlp...@yahoo.com ; juanlm...@gail.com ; passionf...@gmail.com ; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com ; frie...@shaw.ca ; sce...@yahoo.com ; dah...@yahoo.com ; dend...@hotmail.com ; dea...@yahoo.com ; nor...@aol.com ; norine...@yahoo.com ; gi...@aol.com ; lumba...@gmail.com ; romeo_me...@yahoo.com ; chacha...@yahoo.com ; mylo...@yahoo.com ; manuel...@yahoo.com ; manuelpa...@yahoo.com ; bernard...@yahoo.com ; tanj...@pldtdsl.net ; connie_...@yahoo.com ; firstprinciples ; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero ; Teddy TanSent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:14 AMSubject: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
instead of "personal takes" and uninformed opinions or plain outright lies why not present evidence to the contrary. just goes to show how these guys with bloated egos are such liars!
Fr. Marciano M. Guzman on the Retraction and Conversion of Jose Rizal
THE HARD FACTS ABOUT RIZAL’S CONVERSION
by Fr. Marciano M. Guzman(The author, a direct descendant of Rizal’s younger sister, Soledad, has written extensively on related issues.)From time to time, some individuals try to challenge the truth about Rizal’s final conversion as well as his retraction of religious errors before his execution.These attempts to deny our national hero’s conversion and retraction are made without conclusive and documented evidence. They normally do not transcend the psychological arguments devised by the blatant disbelief and stubbornness of some members of masonic lodges.Typical of such reaction was a statement made in 1908 by a Venerable Master of the Grand Regional Lodge of the Philippines. It was pronounced in a meeting called to counteract the effects of Wenceslao Retana’s personal conviction about Rizal’s retraction, expressed in the book Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal. “If Rizal did retract,” the high-ranking Filipino Mason said, “he might have done it through altruism and not for personal interest. But still I have not believed and remain disbelieving in his retraction, notwithstanding so many things said about it, and in spite of the assurances of Jesuits and Retana… the idol of the Philippines has never changed his ideas, in a word, he has never retracted.”A similar type of argument could be found in Rafael Palma’s The Pride of the Malay Race. “Rizal was a man of character,” wrote Palma in his book, “and he had demonstrated it in many circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?”Those who wish to deny Rizal’s conversion in the last hours of his life go against solid historical evidence.Facts of the CaseThe most formidable proof is the document of Rizal’s retraction of errors and profession of faith, duly signed and drawn in his own handwriting from beginning to end.J.M. Cavanna, CM, in his book Rizal and the Philippines of His Days, summarized the hard facts connected with this document. Several eyewitnesses were present when Rizal wrote this holograph. They included three Jesuit priests, four lieutenants of the army, three soldiers of the artillery corps, and a colonel of the Manila Garrison who acted as Judge Advocate in Rizal’s trial.Moreover, on the day of the hero’s execution, his retraction holograph was presented to and examined by the Archbishop of Manila, the Vicar General, the Secretary of the Chancery, the Provincial Superior and two priests of the Society of Jesus, the Fiscal of the Audiencia, one newspaper editorial staff, a layman administrator of a pious confraternity, and most probably other people in the Ateneo and in the Archbishop’s residence where the document was brought.
On the day of Rizal’s death, the full text of the retraction document was published in four leading Manila papers of the widest circulation in the country. On the following days, another Manila newspaper and three Madrid papers with direct correspondents in Manila, together with at least six other Madrid dailies, four Spanish magazines and one Portuguese periodical in Hong Kong published the text of the document with many details about how it was written and signed by the national hero. One of these correspondents declared that “a sister of Dr. Jose Rizal gave him the news about the conversion and retraction of the glorious convict.”Besides, as a proof of his unconditional acceptance of the Catholic faith, Rizal, on his own initiative, signed a Catholic prayer-book with a long, detailed, and explicit profession of faith. He did this after reciting publicly, on his knees before the altar, and in the presence of all the witnesses of his retraction, an act of faith followed by two other prayers of Christian hope and charity. Four eyewitnesses corroborated this fact, and 3 qualified witnesses, 4 newspapers of Manila and Madrid at that time, and 4 historians and writers confirmed their testimony.It is on record that the national hero received the sacrament of Penance 4 times and received Holy Communion fervently during a Mass, before proceeding to Bagumbayan for the execution. At Bagumbayan, moments before his death, in the presence of a “compact multitude which filled Luneta’s esplanade,” Rizal, renewing his contrition for sins already confessed and for whatever he might have forgotten, again asked for forgiveness, kissing the crucifix presented to him by the priest, and for the last time received sacramental absolution.The last absolution he received was recorded in an official document of the government. His previous four confessions in his prison cell were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers of Manila, Madrid and Hong Kong at that time, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.Moreover, Rizal’s conversion is highlighted by his Catholic marriage with Josephine Bracken, solemnized before the altar by a priest with sacred vestments, pronouncing the sacramental blessing according to the Roman Ritual. This solemn canonical marriage, which could not have taken place without Rizal’s previous conversion, was witnessed and attested to by many people.
Furthermore, the conversion of the national hero is supported by the many acts of Catholic piety—such as kneeling before the altar, praying the Rosary, putting on the blue scapular of the Immaculate Conception—which he spontaneously and publicly performed during his last hours.
Rizal’s death was certainly not that of a rationalist and free-thinker. “Sectarian interests,” J.M. Cavanna, CM, aptly commented, “have vainly wasted ink and paper in useless quibbles and cavils to deny the undeniable, or at least to cast doubts on the document of Rizal’s retraction which is the lasting monument of his unfading glory.”What Caused His ConversionRizal’s Jesuit friends were not optimistic about the hero’s change of attitude regarding his religious ideas by noontime of December 29, 1896, the day before his execution. He was adamant about his religious beliefs and did not want to abjure Masonry.Towards mid-afternoon, Fr. Vicente Balaguer, the Jesuit missionary who dealt with Rizal in Dapitan, had a serious discussion with the latter in his prison cell about religious matters. During their conversation, the priest frankly told him that unless he renounced his errors, he would surely be condemned in hell. Rizal finally gave his priest friend a faint glimmer of hope. He promised that he would sincerely pray to God for the gift of faith.Close to 7 p.m., Rizal asked Fr. Jose Vilaclara, SJ, his former professor of Physics at the Ateneo, who had arrived less than an hour earlier, to hear his confession. He was told that he had to make a retraction of his religious errors first, and that a retraction formula was being sent to him from the Archbishop’s residence.The hero eagerly awaited the arrival of the retraction document. It came at 10:00 p.m. Fr. Balaguer sat down with Rizal at the writing table and read to him the long formula prepared by the Archbishop. After hearing the first paragraphs, Rizal did not want to sign it.
He told Fr. Balaguer: “Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine. I will not sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself.”Fr. Balaguer then produced the brief formula written by Fr. Pio Pi, SJ, Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines, which the Archbishop had earlier deemed adequate. After listening to the first paragraph, Rizal signified his acceptance of it, since its style was simple, like his own writing style. While Fr. Balaguer read out the formula, Rizal proceeded to write it in his own handwriting, making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Thus we have a clear, undeniable proof of Rizal’s conversion.What caused this radical change in the soul of the national hero? Was it primarily brought about by the way his Jesuit mentors and friends “directed the attack” to the sentiment, and not to reason, as Wenceslao Retana, the well-known Rizalist, charged? Did he, during those last hours, act under suggestion, influenced by “a series of phenomena” or “abnormal circumstances?” Was his conversion, in Retana’s description, “a romantic concession of the poet,” and not a “meditated concession of the philosopher?”It is true that the Jesuits tried to appeal to Rizal’s feelings and sentiments in their effort to bring him back to the Catholic faith. Thus, in an early morning visit on December 29, Fr. Luis Viza brought him the little statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus carved by Rizal when he was still a student at the Ateneo. Rizal took that image, kissed it, and placed it on his table.Moreover, as we have earlier seen, during their discussion, Fr. Balaguer warned him that if he persisted in his errors, he would be condemned in hell. He also told him that his Jesuit friends would give their lives if by doing so they could attain the salvation of his soul.However, we will not reflect the entire truth if we fail to consider the long conversation Fr. Balaguer had with Rizal about religious matters. Arguments, objections and refutations, with their strict appeal to reason and logic, were brought up during their discussion, as disclosed by Fr. Balaguer himself in his account.In spite of all these, we still cannot rightfully say that Rizal owed his conversion to the influence of those good priests who were his former professors and friends, the sight of the image of the Sacred Heart that brought so many memories of the happy years of his boyhood, and the lively religious discussion he had with Fr. Balaguer. Neither can we truthfully say that his conversion was brought about by the special circumstances he was in, heightened by his imminent death.God’s GraceNo external circumstance, no matter how special or extraordinary it may be, can cause a person’s conversion. Commenting on Retana’s allegation, J.M. Cavanna, CM, clearly explained this basic point.“What happens after some event,” he said, “is not always due to that event. History proves that no amount of exterior circumstances can determine necessarily a conversion; and on the contrary, conversions may take place in the absence of the most powerful exterior stimuli and incentives.”Of course, God can and does make use of human instruments and external circumstances to produce a conversion. Nevertheless, we have to affirm that a conversion is the exclusive work of God’s interior graces.In Rizal’s case, we should not underestimate the supernatural efficacy of the prayers and penances offered by unidentified and unacknowledged members of religious communities to whom the Archbishop of Manila appealed in a circular, in his ardent zeal for Rizal’s conversion. With a few notable exceptions, our history books prefer to keep silent about such events.
AMDG
A M Gonzalez
| It is highly unlikely a man of his caliber would have gone back to his sixth-grade state by recanting the enormous intellectual advances he had made. The only way he could have recanted would have been under extreme duress. |
1. Highly unlikely doesn't make Rizal's recanting, impossible. 2. "Enormous intellectual advances" in some fields doesn't make Rizal an expert in all fields. In using this reasoning, you commit the logical fallacy called Argumentum ad veredundiam. Using Rizal's expertise as if his knowledge was a "know all, end all" makes your argument invalid & illogical. 3. Extreme duress as Louie Fernandez points out is a possibility alright, however, the evidence presented points otherwise. Read up also on Rizal's enlistment to join the Spanish Forces in Cuba & his subsequent arrest in Hong Kong while he was en route. Manolo PS Calling others "Dumb and dumber" is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. When you do so, you precondition yourself to thinking illogically, facilitating the commission of additional logical fallacies (like I just pointed out above). Try being logical sometime! |
Eduardo Gimenez
Gil,
Those are all very good questions. I will add another. Let us assume Rizal signed a retraction letter in Fort Santiago on December 29th at 11:30 pm. For the sake of trying to get at the larger truth beyond the mere facts, let us change just one condition. Let us assume the existence of one honest man. An honest judge who at 10:00 am of Dec. 26 found Rizal “not guilty” and set him free.
Let us then go back to Dec 29th at 11:30 pm. Rizal is not in Fort Santiago under imminent threat of death. Let’s place him in Calamba where he is approached at 11:30 pm by a contingent of priests that included Fr. Luis Viza, Fr. Miguel Mata, Fr. Antonio Rosell, Fr. Federico Faura, Fr. Jose Villaclara and Fr. Vicente Balaguer, carrying with them a retraction document for Rizal to sign.
Under those conditions, who besides a total idiot, could believe Rizal would have signed the retraction?
Love to all,
Danding
--
A M Gonzalez
Danding Great attempt, great imagination! However, your question is academic. It leads to a discussion based on guesses which does not provide the basis for a rational exchange. Manolo |
--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com> wrote: |
Eduardo Gimenez
Manolum Gagum: It leads to a discussion based on guesses which does not provide the basis for a rational exchange.
Response: The stupidity of this guy goes way beyond “normal stupidity”. Reasoning by analogy is beyond him. Reasoning via the scientific method is beyond him. Changing one condition and holding everything else constant is way beyond him.
Danding
A M Gonzalez
| Changing one condition and holding everything else constant is way
beyond him. |
| This is really fun. You're illogical once again This isn't an experiment in Physics or Chemistry where we can measure results by keeping constants and changing variables one at a time. This is real life, past events which can not be relived. We can study each and every fact and that's it. No suppositions please otherwise only absurdities! Try rational thinking. It works Hahahahahahahahaha Manolo PS Have a good evening, all! |
Louie Fernandez
----- Original Message -----From: Eduardo Gimenez
angel arando
Eduardo danding Gimenez is burning and fuming under what would have been his collared neck; had he made the grade he said he had as a postulant for the priesthood – in the Mendiola Benedictine monastery and indeed to his consternation and regret he never did. So he lied --when he has been shown off to be what he pretends to be orwouldlike tobe beyond his ownconsidered Dumb status piece of humanity -- --note what he says and lies with: Quote
Response: For the dumb and the dumber like Angui and you there is nothing wrong with recanting. For the bright and the brighter there is something intrinsically wrong with the idea of having moved so far ahead of where you were in your sixth grade, to then be forced to move back to your sixth grade state because a stupid priest had a cocked gun to your head. Unquote
Manolo –I have underscored precisely the above lines. So as to point out what he is or rather what the poor self-confessed Dumb specimen of humanity --once upon a time is/was -- a ‘clump of cells’ as he himself admits. Thanking indeed that the live embryo progressed with care and to the human status of a person he is now. Though not content, he pursues it at all costs—to the point of showing the lying specimen of humanity that his embryo with human potential figure evolved. Thus, we hear now his total disdain against the human essence of ‘right of life’ of the Embryo which he once was.
What can one do –with such thoughts from a thwarted mind at that as to think that he was worthless asanembryoi at one time. Not so Eduardo Danding Gimenez—read on –you self confessed liar of a voracious reader you are --no doubt. It would be better though if you understood what you read. –read and read.
-We will however grant him that much indeed. The man is in his own right an accomplished homo sapien in his field of whatever and also a model at times. So as to be approached and ‘looked up’ on certain things. If only, because he should have the true Gimenez grit, stuff, depth and determination of his dozen Gimenez brothers and sisters.
After all, at this stage of his life -- per se –he is not a bad human being after all—all things considered though.
He has personal status.
But a better human specimen with said good status as a human embryo no doubt –as we now can compare or rather as he now has turnedout to be; and so is his strange noticeable changed behaviour. (note his self-confessed tendency towards distributing pubic hair ???? )
Yeah Pocholito --one too would query with a ‘Huh Huh –UUUU’ from you.
If not your good pet dog’s imitation of a wow-wowow weee !!,
Come to think of it Pocholito have you ever thought of doing a good dog story on you –if only to do your ‘voice over’ for the ‘howling of hounds’ chasing for the kill in a fox hunt.
Or doing the hound in Sir Arthur ConanDoyle’s Sherlock Holmes ‘Hound of the Baskerville’. IN 3D for sure you’d make good barking and howling the way you do with wanna be cries. So as to be proven a real atheist—a nasty one at that-atheist. .
Manolo – sorry I have again digressed.
But You will admit though also that it is his ‘reasoning’ that falters with the weather -- and his failures long time ago that eats the man up, and most of all, his innate congenital defect of ‘lying’ with intent to deter facts and hail himself as ‘bright and brighter.’
The man is just seeking a good pat on his shoulder which he never got as the young man from the Embryo stage with human potential; he was. If not a good real whack on his head to bring him to his real senses .But be careful not to turn him into another howling POCHOLITO
Never mind his being Dumb (because there by the grace of ‘G’ go we too, and all of us for that matter -- on other things)
.But --which he has over come. With sheer determination and volition and a good helping hand from his parents and family for sure. We congratulate him for his own efforts and volition.
Regrettably now –with the same sheer wrong volition of going against what once was his church –and so ,therefore, there must be an explanation which the man convolutes with his hate that only addresses the church with his made up falsehood and as the above underscored lines –tell us: What it is he tells himself/us – (y no tiene ni abuela) that he is of the “Bright and Brighter” .to anyone.
Let us let him is then.
View what would he know about being bright – when as he confusedly mentions - that in his grade six; elementary class, he should have learned the simple arithmetic formula of compounded percentages. Not failing to mention other similar incidents on the very subject s of Economics, English and Literature, History --our Wikang Pambansa --you name it –also including ‘religion’.Thus his convoluted thoughts and attacks against what ever is Catholic and/or of the Universal Creator,. Of same
Thus too, the man’s utter failure to this day --for more than 50years hence in spite of his claim to the Voracious reading of Dick and Jane and Pepe and Pilar……
Abangan ang susunod --kung sumugud ang sinungalin ni si Euardo Danding Gimenez ….
Meantime keep the faith
:
|
|
-- |
|
-- |
angel arando
Better s still Manolo Eduardo Danding gimenez should be cleaning all that horse shit his mouth leaves behind
Keep the faith –angui
<firstprinc...@googlegroups.com>; 'Gabriel Ma. Guerrero' |
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firstprinciples+...@googlegroups.com To post to this group, send email to firstprinc...@googlegroups.com. |
Manny Amador
It is highly unlikely a man of his caliber would have gone back to his sixth-grade state by recanting the enormous intellectual advances he had made.
1. Highly unlikely doesn't make Rizal's recanting, impossible.
More than that! In fact, they have it wrong. It is HIGHLY LIKELY that a man of Rizal's caliuber would have realized the utter stupidity and injustice of the masonic claims and would have come back to the rational teachings of the Church.
3. Extreme duress as Louie Fernandez points out is a possibility alright, however, the evidence presented points otherwise. Read up also on Rizal's enlistment to join the Spanish Forces in Cuba & his subsequent arrest in Hong Kong while he was en route.
As we can see , a retractioin would NOT have allowed Rizal to escape execution since he was condemned by the state for state crimes, and not for heresy. So the theory that Rizal retratced out of duress actually has little credibility.
By the time of his execution. Rizal was mature and had much time to reflect on his life. He would have had the opportunity to see how illogical it would have been to attack the Catholic faith. He would, of course, still have legitimate issues about the abuses of some of the Spanish friars and the control exercised by the Spanish government over the Philippine Church (look up the Patronato Real). But his retraction did not cover these.
It's about time the Church-haters abandon their idiotic prejudices and look at the evidence objectively. Rizal retracted, and he probably did so because he so that the Catholic faith was NOT to blame for the sufferings of his countrymen. In fact, he would have seen how it was truly beneficial, despite the lies of masons and atheists.
God bless!
Please sign the online petition supporting the pro-life bill (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/
--[Manny Amador]------------------------------------[ma...@phnix.net]--
Alternative Information and Opinions at mamador.wordpress.com
Member: Pro-Life Philippines (http://www.prolife.org.ph)
--[Ang Kapatiran Party]------------[http://www.angkapatiranparty.org]--
Manny Amador
To recant is to admit that what one has said was untrue; that either you were lying or misled or that you were wrong. To recant what he had written or proclaimed would have lessened Rizal for it was for those very declarations that Rizal was honored.
Rizal is NOT honored for accepting stupid atheist ideas, Almario.
Rizal was simply wrong in certain issues, specifically those that had to do with the dogmas of the Church. He realized he was wrong and retracted. Doing so requires wisdom, humility, courage, and character. You should try to emulate our hero and acquire these attributes.
Manny Amador
Those are all very good questions. I will add another. Let us assume Rizal signed a retraction letter in Fort Santiago on December 29th at 11:30 pm. For the sake of trying to get at the larger truth beyond the mere facts, let us change just one condition. Let us assume the existence of one honest man. An honest judge who at 10:00 am of Dec. 26 found Rizal “not guilty” and set him free.Let us then go back to Dec 29th at 11:30 pm. Rizal is not in Fort Santiago under imminent threat of death. Let’s place him in Calamba where he is approached at 11:30 pm by a contingent of priests that included Fr. Luis Viza, Fr. Miguel Mata, Fr. Antonio Rosell, Fr. Federico Faura, Fr. Jose Villaclara and Fr. Vicente Balaguer, carrying with them a retraction document for Rizal to sign.
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Manny Amador
You're doomed Ricardo. Doomed to the 9th level of Dante's inferno. The Catholic Church makes this clear. You aren't a Catholic and only Catholics will make it to heaven according to infallible Catholic Church dogma.
Actually, Danding doesn't even know what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches on the matter.
Below is what the Catechism of the Catholoic Church states. Take note how Danding has gotten it all wrong.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
It is clear from the above that non-Catholics CAN be saved. This is an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. Nothing Danding says can change that.
So, either Danding thoroughly IGNORANT of Catholic teaching in this matter or is LYING again.
Either one is a good reason not to listen to him at all.
God bless!
gi...@aol.com
retraction be submitted to the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) of the United States for scientific analysis to determine its authenticity. A similar proposal was reiterated by Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in 1965, although this time Dr. Hessel suggested "some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden (Please seehttp://joserizal. info/Reflections /retraction. htm)
Cc: pocholosuzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; isip2nay <isip...@yahoo.com>; arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; battlingmano <battli...@yahoo.com>; rvcdp <rv...@yahoo.com>; neltierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_jimenez <frank_...@hotmail.com>; alumniblueeagle <alumnib...@yahoogroups.com>; louiefern <loui...@gmail.com>; hyndmanrobert <hyndma...@yahoo.co.com>; rickysobrevinas <rickyso...@yahoo.com>; litco <li...@skybroadband.com.ph>; rtvillaflor <rtvil...@yahoo.com>; jlp04 <jl...@yahoo.com>; pat.evangelista <pat.eva...@gmail.com>; public.lives <public...@gmail.com>; npestelos <npes...@gmail.com>; fgpestelos <fgpes...@yahoo.com>; socratesplatoaristotle <socratespla...@yahoo.com>; lapulapu_2000 <lapula...@yahoo.com>; juanlmercado <juanlm...@gmail.com>; fnemenzo <fnem...@gmail.com>; efren.padilla <efren....@csueastbay.edu>; elydejaresco <elydej...@yahoo.com>; jlp704 <jlp...@yahoo.com>; juanlmercado <juanlm...@gail.com>; passionforreason <passionf...@gmail.com>; chiefjusticepanganiban <chiefjustic...@hotmail.com>; friesontl <frie...@shaw.ca>; sceniap <sce...@yahoo.com>; dahli_a <dah...@yahoo.com>; dendrina <dend...@hotmail.com>; dealjun <dea...@yahoo.com>; noraa27 <nor...@aol.com>; norinemedina <norine...@yahoo.com>; gilpe <gi...@aol.com>; lumbacesar <lumba...@gmail.com>; romeo_medina2004 <romeo_me...@yahoo.com>; chachamedina <chacha...@yahoo.com>; mylo_star <mylo...@yahoo.com>; manuelbondad <manuel...@yahoo.com>; manuelpatalinjug <manuelpa...@yahoo.com>; bernardodecalba <bernard...@yahoo.com>; tanjutco <tanj...@pldtdsl.net>; connie_almonte <connie_...@yahoo.com>; gma_guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; sttoic <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 7:02 am
Subject: RE: {First Principles} Fwd: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
Subject: Re: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
From: Ricardo B. Boncan
From: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>
To: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>
To: Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
Cc: MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Ricardo B. Boncan <r_bo...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; lfer...@optonline.net; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firstprincipl...@googlegroups.com
To post to this group, send email to firstpr...@googlegroups.com.
Manny Amador
since it is a new year why don't you guys make a resolution to be honest and follow the evidence where it leads. none of you so-called atheists and pseudo-theists have given anything but hot air, personal rants and temper tantrums. you who seek empirical evidence for most anything suddenly resort to personal statements of faith. LOL
What else is new? These atheists and atheist wannabes have been shooting themselves in the foot ever since they started posting. Some of them contradict themselves, lie, or engage in some logical fallacy with practically every post! And when they are faced with clear evidence that sinks their claims, they resort to all sorts of personal attacks and childish tantrums.
let us stick ot the evidence. Rizal clearly retracted, human life begins at fertilization, and overpopulation is a myth. These have been determined using the evidence at hand. It's about time people removed their dogmatic and irrational atheist/socialist blinders and accept the truth.
God bless!
Eduardo Gimenez
Angui: Eduardo danding Gimenez is burning and fuming under what would have been his collared neck;
Response: I’m neither burning nor fuming. I’m having lots of fun. Manolo and you are hilarious. The essence of “funny” is stupidity. Dumb and Dumber was a funny flick because both Dumb and Dumber were delightfully stupid. That’s how we see both of you.
At first we figured you were doing your stupid stunts purposely to keep us entertained. That Manolo and you were comedians emulating Jerry Lewis or Robin Williams entertaining your audience.
This misimpression didn’t last too long. THEY’RE REALLY PROFOUNDLY DUMB became the universally hilarious discovery. But don’t worry because it’s not your fault. You are dumb by nature. Not by deed.
Fret not because I understand what is in the back of your mind: “Whatever Danding may have to say about me, I will still have more money than him”. I will grant you that. But I have enough of my own earned the hard way. And none of it matters to me because I live in a different universe where the major currency is what one knows and how much one can learn and freely teach to others.
They call that wisdom in my universe. It is the ability to understand the qualitative difference between an often worthless zygote versus an invaluable infant.
Happy New Year to all the Arandos,
Danding
From: firstpr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:firstpr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of angel arando
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 3:06 PM
To: 'A M Gonzalez'; firstpr...@googlegroups.com; 'Louie Fernandez';
'Lorenzo Guerrero'; 'Manny Amador'; alumniB...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'poch suzara'; river...@aol.com; 'Libreo Isip'; 'Rene'; 'Ricardo
B. Boncan'; 'Lionel Tierra'; frank_...@hotmail.com; loui...@gmail.com;
hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com;
li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com;
pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com;
fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com;
lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com;
efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com;
juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com;
chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com;
dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com;
gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com;
chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com;
manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net;
connie_...@yahoo.com; 'Gabriel Ma. Guerrero'; 'Teddy Tan'
Subject: RE: {First Principles} More on Rizal's Recanting
Eduardo danding Gimenez is burning and fuming under what would have been his collared neck; had he made the grade he said he had as a postulant for the priesthood – in the Mendiola Benedictine monastery and indeed to his consternation and regret he never did. So he lied --when he has been shown off to be what he pretends to be orwouldlike tobe beyond his ownconsidered Dumb status piece of humanity -- --note what he says and lies with: Quote
|
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
firstprincipl...@googlegroups.com
To post to this group, send email to firstpr...@googlegroups.com.
Eduardo Gimenez
Amador
Re: False Cebu retraction supposedly done when Rizal was not under imminent danger of death, is hearsay inadmissible.
Let us then go back to Dec 29th at 11:30 pm. Rizal is not in Fort Santiago under imminent threat of death. Let’s place him in Calamba where he is approached at 11:30 pm by a contingent of priests that included Fr. Luis Viza, Fr. Miguel Mata, Fr. Antonio Rosell, Fr. Federico Faura, Fr. Jose Villaclara and Fr. Vicente Balaguer, carrying with them a retraction document for Rizal to sign.
Under those conditions, who besides a total idiot, could believe Rizal would have signed the retraction?
Danding
Eduardo Gimenez
Gil,
It’s completely true that the supposed retraction document can be proven to be real or fake by any major “crime-analysis” lab. I suspect ‘non-destructive” tests would suffice to determine the composition and precise manufacturing dates of the papers and inks. It is highly suspicious that the Jesuit order continues to refuse to permit such verification tests. The only reasonable conclusion one can get from such refusal is their certainty the documents will fail every test.
There are just too many questions of veracity about the supposed retraction. Take a quick look at this:
http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of
Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel
Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction,
has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs
significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies.
And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila
newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original"
but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press
in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the
Jesuits had only the imitations.
We now proceed to show the significant differences between the
"original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the
one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the
other hand.
First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which
appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have
"mi calidad" (with "u").
Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word
"Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in
the original and the newspaper texts.
Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third
"Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in the
original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the
critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until
the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the
second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila
newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven
commas.
Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of
the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the
witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr.
Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the
Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an
addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr.
Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which
was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts
too, no witnesses signed the retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never
alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed
that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a
short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not yet clear whether
Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal
what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in
1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by
the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he
dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts
himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the
Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion
his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long
arguments to answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly
answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:
"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of
the two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and
that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is,
you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by
Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is,
and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."
There are too many facts that simply do not pass “the-smell-test”.
Love to all,
Danding
Manny Amador
The Roman Catholic Church dogmas
Doctrine of Salvation
Before we accept Danding's selective and creative interpretation, let's see what the The Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, turn to the Catechism. It is far better than listening to a proven habitual liar like Danding.
God bless!
Manny Amador
There are too many facts that simply do not pass “the-smell-test”.
There are far more facts that do not jive with the claims against the retraction. These include eyewitnesses to Rizal's acts fo piety, plus, of course, the fact that he made a retraction
Manny Amador
There are too many facts that simply do not pass “the-smell-test”.
There are far more facts that do not jive with the claims against the retraction. These include eyewitnesses to Rizal's acts of piety, plus, of course, the fact that he made a retraction TWO YEARS EARLIER!
From Hard Facts About Rizal's Conversion (Sinagtala, 1988), by the late Fr. Marciano Guzman:
The most formidable proof is the document of Rizal’s retraction of errors and profession of faith, duly signed and drawn in his own handwriting from beginning to end.
J.M. Cavanna, CM, in his book Rizal and the Philippines of His Days, summarized the hard facts connected with this document. Several eyewitnesses were present when Rizal wrote this holograph. They included three Jesuit priests, four lieutenants of the army, three soldiers of the artillery corps, and a colonel of the Manila Garrison who acted as Judge Advocate in Rizal’s trial.
Moreover, on the day of the hero’s execution, his retraction holograph was presented to and examined by the Archbishop of Manila, the Vicar General, the Secretary of the Chancery, the Provincial Superior and two priests of the Society of Jesus, the Fiscal of the Audiencia, one newspaper editorial staff, a layman administrator of a pious confraternity, and most probably other people in the Ateneo and in the Archbishop’s residence where the document was brought.
On the day of Rizal’s death, the full text of the retraction document was published in four leading Manila papers of the widest circulation in the country. On the following days, another Manila newspaper and three Madrid papers with direct correspondents in Manila, together with at least six other Madrid dailies, four Spanish magazines and one Portuguese periodical in Hong Kong published the text of the document with many details about how it was written and signed by the national hero. One of these correspondents declared that “a sister of Dr. Jose Rizal gave him the news about the conversion and retraction of the glorious convict.”
Besides, as a proof of his unconditional acceptance of the Catholic faith, Rizal, on his own initiative, signed a Catholic prayer-book with a long, detailed, and explicit profession of faith. He did this after reciting publicly, on his knees before the altar, and in the presence of all the witnesses of his retraction, an act of faith followed by two other prayers of Christian hope and charity. Four eyewitnesses corroborated this fact, and 3 qualified witnesses, 4 newspapers of Manila and Madrid at that time, and 4 historians and writers confirmed their testimony.
It is on record that the national hero received the sacrament of Penance 4 times and received Holy Communion fervently during a Mass, before proceeding to Bagumbayan for the execution. At Bagumbayan, moments before his death, in the presence of a “compact multitude which filled Luneta’s esplanade,” Rizal, renewing his contrition for sins already confessed and for whatever he might have forgotten, again asked for forgiveness, kissing the crucifix presented to him by the priest, and for the last time received sacramental absolution.
The last absolution he received was recorded in an official document of the government. His previous four confessions in his prison cell were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers of Manila, Madrid and Hong Kong at that time, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.
Moreover, Rizal’s conversion is highlighted by his Catholic marriage with Josephine Bracken, solemnized before the altar by a priest with sacred vestments, pronouncing the sacramental blessing according to the Roman Ritual. This solemn canonical marriage, which could not have taken place without Rizal’s previous conversion, was witnessed and attested to by many people.
Furthermore, the conversion of the national hero is supported by the many acts of Catholic piety—such as kneeling before the altar, praying the Rosary, putting on the blue scapular of the Immaculate Conception—which he spontaneously and publicly performed during his last hours.
God bless!
--
Manny Amador
The essence of “funny” is stupidity. Dumb and Dumber was a funny flick because both Dumb and Dumber were delightfully stupid.
That's why Danding is absolutely hilarious. Of course, the fact that he is also a proven habitual liar is cause for concern (about him, that is).
Angui, you seem to be getting Danding's goat all the time. No wonder he has some especially childish (and ineffective) insults reserved for you. We all know he is neither honest or rational. Keep rattling his cage, Angui. He is quite entertaining when he squirms.
God bless!
Eduardo Gimenez
The Necessity of the Church
248. The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)
249. Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)
Uh uh. Cut the BS. Here is the wording. It is clear that church dogma states that membership in the Catholic Church is a necessity for salvation. This is not what the priest have been telling us for years. Either the priests are lying or infallible dogma is not infallible after all.
Danding
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
From: Manny Amador
[mailto:manny....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 7:28 PM
To: Eduardo Gimenez
Manny Amador
Here is the wording. It is clear that church dogma states that membership in the Catholic Church is a necessity for salvation.
The wording is in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church. It's interpretation and statement of Catholic doctrine is AUTHORITATIVE. Danding's distortions, however, are not.
In fact, since Damndign is a proven habitual liar, his interpretation of anything is suspect from the outset.
The words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are clear. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for non-Catholics:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Or perhaps I should ask what will he be lying about next...
God bless!
MANUEL almario
To: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>; Ricardo B. Boncan <dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu>; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:52:01 AM
Subject: Infallible Dogma... Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
VI. The Catholic Church
- The Catholic Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.
- Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
- Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
- The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.
- Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
- According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time.
- The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.
- The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
- The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
- By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
- Christ founded the Catholic Church.
- Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
- In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.
- The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.
- The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.
- The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
- The Church founded by Christ is holy.
- The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
- The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
Manny Amador
Dogma ryhmes and is synonymous with deadma and as Poch says with pigma and hogwash.
But atheism is synonymous with stupidity.
That relationship is far more telling.
God bless!
Manny Amador
Here is the first question. The first and the third dogmas obviously contradict each other. Since God’s nature is incomprehensible to man, it therefore is not possible for God to be known with certainty by the natural light of reason.
This claim shows a misunderstanding of the first and third dogmas, hence Danding -- either deliberately or out of ginorance -- imagines that there is a contradiction between the two. There is none.
The list of dogmas is by Dr. Ludwig Ott and is, of course, a summary and consists of very concise statements in need of explanation. There is nothing dogmatic about HOW Dr. Ott states or formulates the dogmas. They must therefore be interpreted by the Church.
The first dogma refers to the Natural Knowability of the Existence of God.
- God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
- The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
- Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not as immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures. (Sent. certa.)
- Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propia) but analogical (cognitio analoga or analogica). (Sent. certa.)
- God's Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)
The above demolishes Danding's objection entirely.
In addition...
- The blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
- The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.)
Here is a second question. There are many references to God and his attributes being “infinite”. Since we know from Georg Cantor’s mathematical analyses that there are many infinities, which of the many infinities are we talking about? If God is in the first order of infinity, then it is possible to posit superior Gods in a higher orders of infinity.
This statement is a form of the fallacy of equivocation. Cantor infinities are mathematic. God is infinite in perfection, not in mathematical multiplicity.
Here is the third question. If God’s nature is incomprehensible to man then how do the men of the church profess to know so much about God’s nature?
As can be seen above, to know the Nature of God means to know him intuitively and immediately. But we know God in a mediate, abstractive, and therefore analogical manner. Further knowledge requires revelation and the light of glory. That is what is meant by incomprehensible: we do not know him intuitively and immediately.
So, as we can see, not a single one of Danding's claimed inconsistencies can stand up to logical reasoning.
Flawed and contorted reasoning is a common tactic of liars. We have just exposed some examples here.
poch suzara
From: Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com>
To: Eduardo Gimenez <edu...@yuken-usa.com>
Cc: Louie Fernandez <lfer...@optonline.net>; Ricardo B. Boncan <dbo...@urgrad.rochester.edu>; MANUEL almario <mfal...@yahoo.com>; Lorenzo Guerrero <lorenzog...@gmail.com>; poch suzara <pochol...@yahoo.com>; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip <isip...@yahoo.com>; Arando <ara...@btconnect.com>; A M <battli...@yahoo.com>; Rene <rv...@yahoo.com>; Lionel Tierra <nelt...@gmail.com>; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com; loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com; li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com; pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com; fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu; elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com; passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com; frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com; dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com; lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com; mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com; bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com; firstprinciples <firstpr...@googlegroups.com>; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero <gma_gu...@yahoo.com>; Teddy Tan <stt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2011 15:10:55
Subject: Re: About the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith
Manny Amador
To me God is a non-being being about which nothing true can be said.
The idea of non-being being is also contradictory, nonsensical word play on Danding's part and is totally meaningless. It is just an excuse so he can create his own personal god to justify his sick moral decisions (such as the murder of the unborn and the mass atrocities of his favorite totalitarfian socialist regimes).
It would be just as false to say that God is good as to say that God is evil... because God created both good and evil and spread it about evenly throughout his creation.
Besides, get this buddy. Why should I listen to you when you aren't even a Catholic and you will fry in hell in accordance with infallible Catholic dogma?
Always remember that Danding is a proven liar. No one should believe him.
Why should I believe someone who is about to be barbecued in an eternal fire fed by tons of human manure?
Go and peddle your protestant wares elsewhere. I am a Catholic...
By the way, Ben, I think you can see that Danding is attempting to cause friction between Catholics and Protestants on this forum. It is true that there are real differences between Catholic and Protestant teachings, but they have far more in common than any Christian has with Danding's atheistic belief.
Danding has seen that both catholics and Protestants have been able to sink his own claims (and those of his fellow atheists Poich, Mar, and Almario) quite easily. That is why he is trying to foment quarrels. These are very devious and morally reprehensible tactics, to be sure, but that is what we can expect from childish liars and prejudiced and hateful bigots like Danding.
No one should buy the pack of lies Danding is peddling.
God bless.
MANUEL almario
Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 6:38:51 AM
Subject: Re: {First Principles} Fwd: Jose Rizal and the Retraction Lies, Scandal, and Deceptions
Eduardo Gimenez
Amador: The term "incomprehensible" is used in a specific manner by the Church (and Dr. Ott). It means we do not know God's Nature intuitively and immediately.
Response: Oh. How can it be that only you know that the church and Dr. Ott use a common word in an uncommon manner? The common word is “incomprehensible” and it commonly means “cannot be comprehended”.
Which leads us back to the question of God’s incomprehensibility versus the church knowing God is infinitely good even if he is the creator of all things good and all things evil. Or God being omnipotent even if it seems completely clear he has almost no control over man, angel or demon. What the fuck kind of omnipotence is this?
From: firstpr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:firstpr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Manny Amador
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 1:11 AM
To: Eduardo Gimenez
Cc: Louie Fernandez; Ricardo B. Boncan; MANUEL almario; Lorenzo
Guerrero; poch suzara; river...@aol.com; Libreo Isip; Arando; A M; Rene;
Lionel Tierra; frank_...@hotmail.com; alumnib...@yahoogroups.com;
loui...@gmail.com; hyndma...@yahoo.co.com; rickyso...@yahoo.com;
li...@skybroadband.com.ph; rtvil...@yahoo.com; jl...@yahoo.com;
pat.eva...@gmail.com; public...@gmail.com; npes...@gmail.com;
fgpes...@yahoo.com; socratespla...@yahoo.com; lapula...@yahoo.com;
juanlm...@gmail.com; fnem...@gmail.com; efren....@csueastbay.edu;
elydej...@yahoo.com; jlp...@yahoo.com; juanlm...@gail.com;
passionf...@gmail.com; chiefjustic...@hotmail.com;
frie...@shaw.ca; sce...@yahoo.com; dah...@yahoo.com; dend...@hotmail.com;
dea...@yahoo.com; nor...@aol.com; norine...@yahoo.com; gi...@aol.com;
lumba...@gmail.com; romeo_me...@yahoo.com; chacha...@yahoo.com;
mylo...@yahoo.com; manuel...@yahoo.com; manuelpa...@yahoo.com;
bernard...@yahoo.com; tanj...@pldtdsl.net; connie_...@yahoo.com;
firstprinciples; Gabriel Ma. Guerrero; Teddy Tan
--
A M Gonzalez
| Thanks Manny Another well documented post. You and Ben Rivera provide facts for the discerning to consider and determine who it is sell "fancy sounding" lies or distorted truths. Manolo --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
A M Gonzalez
Gil Fernandez says, |
The following argument is based purely on common sense: |
|
Rizal knew that if he did not retract, he would be killed.
Also, he knew that if he would retract, he would still be killed.
Then why would he retract, to humiliate himself ? |
Questions: 1. Why is retracting a humiliation? 2. You consider Rizal's retraction a humiliation based on common sense. I reckon you say so not because of common sense but rather because, you don't believe in God! Do you truthfully not believe in God, Gil? 3. If Rizal changed his mind about God's existence, is it reasonable to think Rizal could have acknowledged God by retracting? Manolo --- On Fri, 12/31/10, gi...@aol.com <gi...@aol.com> wrote: |
A M Gonzalez
| Great new facts, Manny. Thanks Manolo |
--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Manny Amador <manny....@gmail.com> wrote: |
|