Fear Factor: A Challenge to Abraham Arganiosa

According to NBC.com, Fear Factor is an American stunt/dare reality game show wherein the contestants compete against each other to better and/or quicker than all the other contestants for a chance to win US $50,000. These people have learned to conquer their fear by doing those stunts. However, it seems that this is not evident with the situation of a Catholic Priest, Abraham Arganiosa. The word “Fear” is a relative term which was used in the bible in different contexts.

The Lord Jesus Christ told the Christians not to Fear those who can kill the body but fear  the one who can destroy both the body and soul in hell.

Douay-Rheims Bible

(Matthew 10:28)
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

A Christian preacher does not fear those people who can kill and destroy his body which is the reason why he continues to preach despite of all the persecutions and trial he faces. This is exactly the same thing that the Apostle Paul experienced during the time of the First Century Christian Church.

(1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

Christian preachers suffered physical trials to the point of loosing their own life. They give more importance to their duty to proclaim the gospel rather than their own life.

(Acts 20:24)

But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.


They don’t fear death as much as they don’t fear of losing in a debate because the Lord Jesus Christ has a promise to them.

(Luke 21:13-15)

And it shall turn to you for a testimony.  Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

This promise was fulfilled in the person of Bro. Eli Soriano. He had practically debated with people coming from various kinds of beliefs ever since he started preaching.

http://elisoriano.com/life/

On January 13, 2004, Bro. Eli registered the name Members Church of God International, the name the Church currently uses, in response to the growing number of members in other countries, both Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Despite the persecution presented by other religious groups, the congregation he leads remains steadfast.

Bro. Eliseo Soriano

The year 1980 marked Bro. Eli Soriano’s launching of his own radio program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path). Ang Dating Daanwas first aired on DWWA 1206 kHz, and then in DWAR, DZME, DZMB, DWAD, DZRD, DWAN, DZXQ, and in local stations in the country.

Bro. Eli Soriano was also invited as guest panelist in the DZBB program “Dis is Manolo and his GENIUS Family” (GENIUS stands for God Eternal News In Universal Salvation). Some of the other panelists were Bert Valinton and Domingo Filomeno of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Manuel Manzanilla of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Agustin Tabuñar of Iglesia Spiritista, Onnie Santiago of Iglesia ng Dios Espiritu Santo, Jess Patricio of Roman Catholic Church, Tydee Toloui of Bahai Faith, Miguel Inciong of Iglesia ng Espiritu Santo, Severino Taril, a Dr. Jose Rizal follower, Romulo Aldana, Mr. Khempis, Resty Policarpio, Aldon Tagumpay, and Rudy Natividad. For three consecutive years, Bro. Eli Soriano received the “Most Outstanding Minister” award in the GENIUS Family. No other minister was awarded the same after him.


Records of his discussions can be seen on National Television and on the Internet as well.

Bro. Eli was always successful on refuting the claims of these claiming to be God-sent preachers which is the reason why other preachers are now avoiding to engage with him in a debate. This is the same scenario that is now happening to the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa. After writing an article on his blog, the members of the Church of God ask him if he will agree to engage in a debate with Bro. Eli Soriano.

Nevertheless, since you are the one who wrote this article and you claim to be Catholic Priest, will you accept a challenge for a debate with ADD on National Television?

The Catholic Priest, instead of giving a direct answer, answered back with a question.

Concerning Debate: Before I answer your question, I want to know who you are first and what is your relation with the ADD. I DO NOT ENTRUST MY ACTIVITIES ON STRANGERS LIKE YOU. The problem is that there are so many anonymous who are PRETENDING to be spokesperson of certain religions but in actuality they are mere PARASITES claiming to be part of such a body.

As courtesy, we informed him that his blog is closely monitored by the Church’s Central administration on his comment box. However, for whatever reason, he did not let it appear on the comment section of his blog. He then in turn resort to divert the challenge to other people.

Besides, before he can reach me he needs to face the prior challenges from INC, from Willy Santiago, from Atty. Marwil Llasos the Catholic Apologist who issued a public challenge to Mr. Razon.

Another funny thing about this Priest is when he wanted to appear that he accepts the challenge later on but gave improbable conditions.

DEFINITELY YES. I CAN EVEN DEBATE HIM FACE TO FACE RIGHT IN FRONT OF INC CENTRAL TEMPLE IN COMMONWEALTH IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. AND WE CAN EVEN INVITE THE JUDGE OF HIS SEXUAL CASES TO BE THE MODERATOR. HA, HA, HA… THAT WILL BE VERY EXCITING.

People who read these declarations on his blog began to wonder if these are  words of a Priest. Why will he give an improbable condition to debate in front of the INC temple? Any person in his right mind knows that it is not a rightful place for a debate to take place. The challenge to him was clearly a debate on National Television which he tries to evade. What he said is clearly an answer of a person who will not face Bro. Eli Soriano on a decent discussion regarding faith and religion.

Mister Arganiosa, instead resorted to give excessive sarcasm and insults which are elements of a Fallacy in Argument:  “Appeal to Mockery” instead of giving decent replies.

I noticed that one commenter has a similar way of writing like him. We can notice that Mr. Arganiosa loves to use braces in order to quote from another person just like this example.

[Or indeed Mr. Abe is such a blind person for he cannot see Bro. Eli.]

Similarly, a commenter named Parabanog also has the same style of writing.

[Now your writing style reverted back to the writing style of the Priest. Yes, I believe that you are the lame Priest with the support of Wilfredo Santiago’s Group. I will write a separate article to prove that. If you want to know my identity, that’s easy. Are you ready to debate with Bro. Eli on television with the facilitites of UNTV 37 and your own Catholic Television Program which is now possible? Or rather you will resort to improbable conditions to avoid it?]

In addition, checking the IP Address of Parabanog gives us a clue that he is in the same area where Mr. Arganiosa is.

He is in Legaspi using Smart Bro as his Internet Service Provider base on his IP Address. According to Mr. Argionsa, he is in Sorsogan which is very much near Legaspi. Both places are located in the Bicol Region. This gives me an idea that this Parabanog is also Mr. Arganiosa.

As recorded, this commenter also uses trash talks similar to that of the Catholic Priest. However, I also noticed that there is a sudden change on his writing style when he accused “The Old Path” as the path where evil people walk. Instead of using braces, he instead used semi-colon.

Christiandefender: Ginamit ang nakasulat sa Job 22:15. Sino ba ang nagsasalita sa talatang yan? Kung itataas natin ang pagbabasa sa naunang talata, sa talatang Job 22:1, makikita nating malinaw na ang nagsasalita sa talata ay si Eliphaz na Temanita.

He even used Job 4:8 to sustain his stand. It flashed immediately to my mind that this verse was used on one of our Church’s Thanksgiving topics during the time when Wilfredo Santiago was still inside the Church. Just like the flow of our Thanksgiving topic, he also used Gal. 6:7-8 to sustain his claim that the words of Eliphaz was right. However, the verse in Job 4:8 as it was enlightened before the Church of God are not really the words of Eliphaz. We can prove that on a separate article which may be written in Tagalog. It then came to my mind that this Catholic Priest, now uses the arguments feed by Wilfredo Santiago’s Group. In the first place, the Catholic Church never used these arguments in their Catechisms. The Catholic Church did not even teach that it is bad to face the east direction whenever praying. Those arguments just came from Wilfredo Santiago and is not originally Catholic.

My advice to Mr. Arganiosa is to conquer his fear to be be put to shame on a debate on National Television. MCGI has no record of murdering anyone specially our enemies. This is not a physical battle; Rather this is a spiritual battle which can be settled in a peaceful and civilize way.

54 Responses

  1. I have also that kind of feeling for Parabanog and the lame priest for they have the same attitude. They cannot present sensible arguments but rather resort to trash talking. If you will ask the lame priest, he will still claim he’s a decent priest. How disappointing?

  2. Perhaps Mister Arganiosa has a unique definition of the word “decent”. For him, a decent person always do trash talking.

  3. This is what we call Hypocrites in Titus 1:16-Professing that they know God but……..they are not actually of God.

  4. A “decent person” never spit around before national television. never say harsh words before public. as an ETHICS student, Social Responsibility must always uphold by the subject.

    • Talk about ethics. The ethics that you know is not even biblical. Your text ethics does not fit a character of an ethical person either.

    • Spitting? Unethical? So, what can you say about this? (Revelations 3:16)

      So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

      God knows how to spew. Is that unethical?

  5. Wala yang modern day Padre Damaso na si Fr. Abe. sa mga INC members pa lang talo na siya. ang dami niyang mga caplocks posts na halatang napipikon siya LOL.

    di na yan lalaban mga tol. kung sa mga ministro pa lang sinubukan ng mga INC members na iset ang debate sa TV eh ayaw ng pari, what’s more sa kinatatakutan ng mga ministro ni Manalo na si TruthCaster at Kuya LOL?

    lalong di lalaban yan.

    tignan nyo ang posts ng paring yan sa article niyang 95th year ng INC.

    pikon din siya sa mga INC.

    ang galing ng debate web ah.

    1) INCs can defeat Catholic Faith

    2) ADDs can defeat INC faith

    Super galing rin ng pagkakuha ng kaanib:

    1) INC snatchs Catholics

    2) ADDs snatchs INCs

    LOL hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Di masagot ng pari yung 1 Timoteo 4:3 ng tamang tama kasi halatang ang Simbahan ang nagpapairal ng aral ng diablo na bawal mag asawa. ayun napikon ang pari sa mga INC members PALANG.

    what’s more sa mga kaanib sa ADD na kayang talunin mga INC members?

    Sus MIO! Jesus Maria Jose! katatakot na pagmumura at paninigaw aabutin nyo sa makabagong Padre Damaso na si Padre Abe BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  6. GOOD Day

  7. Sorry to say but the analysis on the identity of Arganiosa and Parabanog is very lame. All non-sequitur. Similarity in writing styles, proximity of locations, attitudes, mannerisms, view points, etc. can not prove anything to establish that they are one person. The article merely raised suspicions without solid bases. It cast doubt on Abe’s being a catholic priest, when a simple research on his blog and other sites would clearly reveal that indeed he is.

    The article also pointed out that Arganiosa talked trash. Eli Soriano and his followers also talked trash, even much worse than the priest. So why see the dirt on the other side and turn a blind eye on the dung heap on your side? Faulty reasoning and biased judgment plus casting aspersions first before verification is a perfect recipe for what i call garbage thinking.

    Pardon me if say that. Im not defending them. I dont even know or care about them. Im just appalled by the posturing of challenging someone to a debate when the writer of the article cannot even think straight. How can we entrust the Word of God to people who think this way? We have to remember that Apostle Peter himself reminded us long ago that there are things in the Scriptures that are hard to understand, that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction (2Peter3:16)

    The article clearly displayed such a level of ignorance and instability of thinking. What can we expect then from your camp regarding Christian Biblical teachings, clarity and enlightenment? I wont bet on it. You still have a lot of work to do. And it appears that your arguments are not winning against that of the priest.

    • The Priest presents no argument at all but pure trash talks coupled with delusions. That’s the reason why he cannot say YES to a debate on National Television but instead made improbable conditions in order to evade from it. Can he not debate Bro. Eli while he is on his television studio while Bro. Eli is on our television studio in South America? Modern Technology will allow that setup but he keeps on insisting his fallacies.

      We don’t talk trash anywhere on this blog. It was the Catholic Priest who fails to observe proper etiquette of discussion on the things that he writes on his comments and articles. That makes me doubt of him being a Catholic Priest. I cannot believe that such trash talks would come from someone who studied inside the seminary for ten years. Is that the kind of talking he learned all those years?

      You accused me of someone that cannot think straight. You better prove that accusation of yours because it is also easy for me to say the same thing if there is no need to prove it. Why say that you are not defending them while your comment takes their side to the best of their interests? Isn’t that pretentious?

      I can say that your comment displays such a level of ignorance and instability of thinking while our preacher can clearly express Biblical Teachings with clarity and enlightenment. Abe Arganiosa’s trash talk just back-fired on him. He cannot gain respect by using that style of communication.

  8. Brod Christiandefender,
    I think you completely missed the whole point of my comment. You did not understand at all. It was not even about Arganiosa nor Eli Soriano. It was all about your faulty arguments and your lofty posturing. Didn’t you see it? Come on. Think straight brod.

    You asked me to prove to you my “accusations” that you cannot think straight. Well, i dont think i need to add to what i already pointed out in my comment regarding your fallacious thinking, but the fact that you failed to get my point is already an added proof to that.

    Thus i can say, and again pardon me for saying this, that your response to my previous comment is just as pathetic as your article. And that is putting it mildly.

    And you really believed that I am defending Arganiosa. Brod, if one criticizes Gloria Arroyo, does it mean he is supporting Erap? Not necessarily of course. (Just ask Joey Salceda, one of her economic advisers. That, if you know what im talking about).

    You doubted Arganiosa’s identity as a priest solely on the basis of his spoken and written words. Come on. The way to do that is to research on the list of catholic clergy in the Philippines. Its available. I dont have to tell you how to do that. And one good thing that would have helped your position is to affirm his priestly identity and “lambast” him – forgive the word if sounds like trash talking to you -for his “unpriestly” conduct. (That’s one tip already.)

    Added to this, you are now trying to turn the table around by implying that I also displayed “a level of ignorance and instability of thinking” WITHOUT PROVING HOW AND WHY IT WAS SO. So there you are, caught in your own trap. Or in your own words, it “back-fired” on you.

    I dont mean to be mean to you brod. Im sorry if i offended your feelings. But since you are waging a battle of minds, let my comments stay at that level. That is, of the mind, and not of mere feelings. I read your blog because i want to learn from you. And i have spent a considerable amount of my precious time absorbing everything that you have to say. Dont you think that we your readers deserve a better and well thought-out article, as well as an intelligent response from you?

    • I just remembered my days in UP wherein frat men will call their friends “brod” instead of “brother”. I know that it is hard to please all people especially if some people already have their own interest and biases when it comes to issues. It is very easy to say that what this person says is trash or garbage without any proof because accusing is easier than proving for most people who does not care to observe integrity of words.

      In my 17 years of stay in the Catholic Religion, I have never met a priest who’s writing and speaking conduct is the same as Abe Arganiosa. This gives me doubts of what his character really is. Browsing his blog will point out that he is a Catholic Priest but it does not manifest in his writing style. If he is a priest, at least I expect him to show the priestly conduct that I’ve seen when I was still a Catholic contrary to what he is doing. However, establishing his credential as a Catholic Priest will also establish the idea that “Abe Arganiosa is a Catholic Priest who loves talking trash”. Now we found out that there is Catholic Priest who talks trash and it is natural to him.

      The proof that your comment displays level of ignorance and instability of thinking is the way you deliver your thoughts through texts without substantial proof. That is my proof of your level of ignorance and instability of thinking.

      FYI: I’m not comfortable of using “brod” as a shortened version of the word “brother” through text. That is what I hear frat members use when I was still studying. Please use the word “brother” or the shortened word “bro.” as the Evangelical Christians popularized.

    • In addition with it, priests taught by the Bible never even have an attitude like what Mr. Abe has. Maybe, he will fall under those priests said in Micah 3:11.

  9. The article presented by Christiandefender is very clear. It is short and direct. Its brevity invites reading as well. The Priests could easily say that he agrees to a debate on National Television but it is very obvious that he looks for excuses to turn-away from it.

    I can see the point why a debate on National Television is more appropriate than what Abe Arganiosa seems to give as a condition as a debate in front of INC Temple. Modern Technology is already available these days and it is far more economical and can reach a wider number of audience on the convenience of their living room. Abe is just making an excuse for the debate not to take place.

    Although it may take place if the priest will stop making excuses, I still believe that this priest cannot win over Bro. Eli when it comes to biblical discussion.

  10. Keep up the good work Christiandefender!

    Because of this article, I am more convinced that no other preacher matches the caliber of Bro. Eli Soriano.

    To God Be the Glory!

  11. “This is not a physical battle; Rather this is a spiritual battle which can be settled in a peaceful and civilize way.”

    You said it right. This is indeed a spiritual battle which can only be won by a preacher who is on God’s side. In this case, I believe Bro. Eli will win because God is with him and not with the coward priest.

  12. In my many years of reading blogs over the Internet, I consider Christiandefender’s writing style one of the best. I like the way he equipped his articles with videos and quotations from other websites. It is obvious that he strictly avoids plagiarism. I also like the way he presents evidence of the probability that Parabanog is the Priest. He is quite a keen observer.

    • That is a good observation.

  13. A caliber of a teacher can also be known by the quality of students he produces.

    Lately I have learned that Bro. Eli Soriano’s blog was chosen as The Most Educational Blog to follow. This blog site is an evidence that Bro. Eli Soriano has imparted good and quality biblical teachings to all his students.

    Thanks be to God!

  14. Christiandefenders:

    To be honest, I did not expect a reply from you. I expected rather a “new and better” article, hoping perhaps that you had in mind the points I raised in my previous comment. Since you responded, thanks a lot. But allow me to express my opinion.

    Well, you still believed that I offered no “proof” for your fallacious way of thinking. I thought what I said was obvious enough, but since it did not appear that way to you, I guess I have no choice but to accentuate the obvious.

    First, you implied that Parabanog and Arganiosa are one and the same person. The bases that you laid for this are: similarity in writing style, proximity of their location, and similarities in view points and attitudes.

    Well, let me just cut the argument short. I can see that Heavensknight and Christiandefenders have similarities in writing style. Both guys love to spruce up their sentences with Bible quotations taken from similar sources, (Ang Dating Biblia, KJV, etc); both love to post pictures of Eli Soriano and other documentary sources on their pages; both love to consult the internet for additional references;

    Both have similarities in viewpoints: they admired Eli Soriano to high heavens; they belong to the same group with the same belief system, but that’s a given;

    Both displayed the same aversion to Arganiosa’s “trash talk”; and they even argue in the same manner, not to mention “the way [they] deliver [their] thoughts.”

    And many more.

    But based on the above considerations, it’s not difficult to see how silly it is to conclude that Heavensknight and Christiandefenders are one and the same person. That’s very obvious, dont you think?

    What im saying is: this is the same line of argument that Christiandefender had employed to support his belief that Arganiosa and Parabanog are one and the same person. Now, it becomes easy to see how ridiculous it is to believe this assertion. Or so I hope.

    Another thing is that you doubted Argniosa’s identity as a priest. And your ONLY basis was his written word. Arganiosa talks or writes like no other priest that you know, therefore it is doubtful that Arganiosa is a priest. That is your line of reasoning. And that is plain silly. Don’t you see it?

    When one’s arguments are based on doubtful and ridiculous premises, one will come up with ridiculous conclusions, like the one Christiandefenders had come up with. That’s why i called this garbage thinking. Now, don’t you think that this is the real definition of “trash talking?” – or “trash writing” if you will?

    You lambasted Arganiosa for his “trash talk,” which you really confused with his sarcasm and insults. There’s a huge difference between the two. Trash talking may involve sarcam and insults, but not always. Sometimes “trash talking” or “trash writing,” if you prefer, would appear as a nice and clean article like the one made by Christiandefenders. He believes he does not “trash talk,” but surely he used a moderate amount of sarcasm and insult in his writing.

    Okay, okay, just in case you’ll demand it again from me, here’s the proof:

    Christiandefenders said:

    “The proof that your comment displays level of ignorance and instability of thinking is the way you deliver your thoughts through texts without substantial proof. That is my proof of your level of ignorance and instability of thinking.”

    Obviously this is a statement without factual substance. The writer said it simply because he wanted to say it, perhaps to hurl a subtle sarcastic insult, or “trash talk.” Even though the proof of my argument is as light as day, Christiandefenders failed to see it. And that to me is a clear PROOF of his IGNORANCE and INSTABILITY of thinking.

    Therefore, how would anyone take to task somebody for sarcasm and insults (or as understood by the writer, “trash talk”) when he himself is guilty of the same offense? Now, Christiandefenders own pretensions are becoming obvious!

    One reactor by the name of Avatar even thought that Christiandefenders is a “keen observer.” Well and good for you Mr. (or Miss?) Avatar, but you idol is not keen enough to see his own flawed thinking.

    • I can always reply if the luxury of time permits so you can expect for a reply if your comment is worth replying. Unfortunately, what you thought as obvious proofs of my fallacious way of thinking is just a pigment of your imagination. There is no such thing.

      I did not just imply that Parabanog and Abe Arganiosa is one and the same person because I blatantly said it. You can easily recall that I address Parabanog as the Catholic Priest because I always maintain that stand. Their writing style is not only similar but they are exactly the same; they are also on the same area base on the IP address that I got; Just recently, I caught Abe Arganiosa using the comment made by Parabanog even if it was not yet approved and still awaiting moderation. I would have to make another article regarding that and put other technical knowledge into use.

      Heavenknight’s writing style is not exactly the same as mine as he has the ability to provide deeper analysis contrary to the comparison that you have just made. We don’t completely argue on the same manner and so far, I am the only one who posted pictures of Bro. Eli on this blog. Our similarities in writing were unlike the ones we see in comparing the styles of Abe Arganiosa and Parabanog which are completely photocopied. If writing style will be the basis, we can easily distinguish that of Christiandefender’s and that of Heavenknight’s. However, if Parabanog is not really Abe Arganiosa, that still makes no difference for they have the same father (John 8:44).

      About the definition of trash talking that you have mentioned, according to thefreedictionary.com, “a trash talk is a disparaging, often insulting or vulgar speech about another person or group.” This definition fits the kind of language that we see on Abe Arganiosa’s articles which was also noticed by another blogger, Pinoy Reformista.

      The statement that I used to describe your comment is not a trash talk but a critique. However, if you view that as a trash talk, that statement originally came from you which is a mirror of your comment. That came from your own pretension which fits your writing character.

      Nobody is guilty of the offense but Abe Arganiosa and his minions.

  15. hahahahahaha…………… self service…………….

    • Other commenters are entitled to give their own observation. Learn to respect their views so that they will also respect yours.

      • It is not just an observation, but it is a fact that ADDdefender and Apalitsknight are the same person. Obvious. . . obvious. . . now your accussation towards Fr Abe and Parabanog backfired to your face. . . hohohohoho….

        • Where is your proof? I already show some of my basis but your basis is unknown. How can we trust someone who’s basis is his own opinion?

          • Not only an opinion but an observation to writing, style and grammar which are mostly low level english with systematic errors. . .

          • Bro. Noel Says.

            “Not only an opinion but an observation to writing, style and grammar which are mostly low level english with systematic errors. . .”

            My say:

            Sad to say, the one who posted this comment does not even observe proper punctuation and his priest does not observe the proper text ethics when using UPPER CASE LETTERS in writing his articles. The comment is just a hearsay.

  16. That’s one good piece of advise from you, brother christiandefenders.

    Respecting other peoples’ views is indeed very important. But sometimes, it gets easily thrown away in the heat of the exchanges of words.

    This usually happens when one tries to turn the table on the opposing party just for the sake of doing it, accuses people of something that he himself is guilty of, and ends up being caught by his own words.

    • That’s exactly what Abe Arganiosa does.

  17. Christiandefenders,

    Weel, I think you have forgotten that both of you do exactly the same thing, only at different degrees.

    • If you believe so, then prove it.

  18. Amen!

  19. Christian defenders and Heavens Knight,

    You really made a perfect tandem, fancy names and all. It’s like asking me to prove to you that the sun exists.

    • That is a wrong comparison.

      • All ADD replies are mostly written by only one person, quite obvious. . .hehehehe. . .

        • How do you say so? Can you see the IP Address of each commenter to prove that they are just one person?

  20. Christiandefenders and Heavens Knight;

    You asked me to PROVE to you that you and Arganiosa are doing the same thing, but at different degrees.

    Yes I will do that. But before I do that, I will be needing your help.

    These are the things that you may do for me and for the rest of your readers:

    First. Have a good reading eyesight. If not, a good pair of eyeglasses will do.

    Second. You may review your lessons in Logic, especially on the topic, “How to Think Straight.”

    Third. Go over your Article at least once.

    Fourth. Contrast it with my comments on the said Article.

    Fifth. Analyse carefully.

    If you do all of the above, I wont be surprised if afterwards you wont be needing any more PROOF from anyone else. The proof will be right there staring straight at your faces.

    Oh by the way, you already said “That’s exactly what Arganiosa does.” So you have already found Half of the Proof. So, finding the other half wont be that difficult anymore.

  21. Christiandefenders;

    Thanks for your reply. My comments are still worth-replying after all.

    You still held on to your belief that Arganiosa and Parabanog are one and the same person. Well, nobody can force you to believe otherwise. That’s your belief. It has to be respected as such. Maybe you are right! Maybe be you are wrong! In other words, only Arganiosa or Parabanog had an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY on this matter. Nobody, nobody, but THEM.

    In the absence of ABSOLUTE PROOF, we can only have circumstantial evidence, respectable PROBABILITIES, curious SUSPICIONS, intelligent CONJECTURES, and diligent GUESSWORK. If you will now assert that the bases that you had laid for your conclusion already constitute its PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE or ABSOLUTE PROOF, then your conclusion becomes a TRUE pigment of your imagination.

    It is true that sometimes we can make right statements in the absence of solid evidence. Like when one say, “some politicians are corrupt” even though he cannot verify it from his own experience. In other words, I’m not saying that your conclusion about Arganiosa and Parabanog is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. But I’m not saying that you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT either. What I’m saying is that your conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE. However, you may still BLATANTLY say it, but it cannot change the fact that your bases are BLATANTLY INSUFFICIENT. And for blatantly making an ABSOLUTE conclusion without ABSOLUTE PROOF, your thinking becomes BLATANTLY FALLACIOUS.

    Now, if you still cant see how fallacious your arguments were, well and good. Let it be that way. After all, I dont have the power to cure blindness.

    Also, I wonder why you took pains in demonstrating that Christiandefenders and Heavens Knight are two distinct individuals. In the first place, nobody made an allusion that you two are one and the same person. I even said to the contrary, if you remember. But you seemed to think otherwise! Well, at least that’s my impression. Still, I would like to think that you simply wanted to correct some of the impressions I made regarding the similarities of the two of you.

    But even then, it’s unnecessary to correct that. After all, they were but mere impressions that were being used as an illustration that even indirectly supported the very fact that Heavens Knight and Christiandefenders are two distinct individuals. Now, dont tell me that you again failed to understand this important point!

    Unless you took these impressions to be another one of my “accusations” – that you and Heavens Knight are one and the same person. And if you took it that way, then you are absolutely wrong. And what can I say then? Another blatant display of your fallacious thinking? I hope that’s not the case. I still would like to believe that you are smart enough not to harm your case any furter.

    Thanks for providing a standard definition of “trash talking.” Im sure you will agree with me if I say we should avoid this kind of language at all time. (But i dont think Eli Soriano will agree. Its from him that I heard the most vulgar, disparaging, and insulting words on national television. Sorry for saying that)

    My main reason for avoiding trash talking is that most of those disparaging, insulting, and vulgar words that we attribute to the other person dont bear any resemblance to the truth about the person.

    Now tell me, what can be more disparaging and insulting than saying to a person that he is a “son of the devil?” Do you really feel justified when you call your opponents Abe Arganiosa and Parabanog “sons of the devil,” with ONLY spite and disdain in your heart? And do you really believe that God agrees with you when you say that? And You even dared to attack your reactor’s character without even knowing who he is?

    And despite all these you still maintained you dont talk trash? Will this not make you a hyprocrite, a lousy one at that?

    Think about it!

    • If you are going to look at the previous comment made by Noel, he blatantly said that Christiandefenders and Heavens Knight are the same person. He even went to the extent of murdering our pen names.

      It is not just an observation, but it is a fact that ADDdefender and Apalitsknight are the same person. Obvious. . . obvious. . . now your accussation towards Fr Abe and Parabanog backfired to your face. . . hohohohoho….

      The strange thing with your comment is your statement that nobody made an allusion that we are one and the same person.

      In the first place, nobody made an allusion that you two are one and the same person

      I also have a piece of advice for you which I got from your previous comment.

      First. Have a good reading eyesight. If not, a good pair of eyeglasses will do.

      Second. You may review your lessons in Logic, especially on the topic, “How to Think Straight.”

      Third. Go over your Article at least once.

      Fourth. Contrast it with my comments on the said Article.

      Fifth. Analyse carefully.

      If you do all of the above, I wont be surprised if afterwards you wont be needing any more PROOF from anyone else. The proof will be right there staring straight at your faces.

      As for the trash talking issue, I don’t think Bro. Eli is guilty of that at all base on the biblical insights which he explained to us.




      The phrase “son of the Devil” were used by Christ and the Apostle Paul in the bible.

      (John 8:44)

      Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

      (Acts 13:10)

      And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

      Earlier, I haven’t blatantly said that Abe Arganiosa is a son of the Devil. I just said that even if he and Parabanog are two distinct individuals, they still have the same father (John 8:44). However, you are right to think that it is my belief. I can blatantly say that Abe Arganiosa is a son of the devil because he is a liar and a murderer. He murders his fellow men through his slanderous words that reflects his character.

      (Proverbs 11:9)

      An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

      I still maintain that I don’t trash talk. I just used the right words fitly spoken.

      (Proverbs 25:11)

      A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

  22. Christiandefenders;

    Well, I take it mean that you have nothing meaningful to say anymore.

    • It’s up to you.

  23. Christiandefenders;

    you deleted one of my posts that alluded to the fact that you are trying to disrupt the flow of thought among the commenters in this post, by “relocating” Bro Noel’s comment next to yours intead of mine, thereby creating a false impression that somehow puts you in a better light. Since you deleted it, my suspicion is confirmed. Its a shame that you do that.

    • Your post was not deleted. It was not approved. The length of your post can be sufficiently answered with another article which I am planning to do if the luxury of time permits. In addition, I did not relocate any comment being posted on my article. The location of your comment depends if you click the correct reply button and if the number of comments under a comment is still allowed by the settings of this blog. Your suspicion is just a product of your mental delusion.

  24. Christiandefenders;

    Thank you for clarifying that my post was not deleted. It was simply not approved after all. In any case, your intention is the same. And perhaps this is one case where “to delete” and to “not to approve” make no difference whatsoever. But to commit such an act is your prerogative. That’s fine with me.

    My suspicion may now be vanished with your tolerable answer. So you see, it only needs a simple explanation on your part to erase those kinds suspicion like the one I previously had.

    In short, there was no need for you to disapprove my comment. A truthful and honest answer from you would suffice to address whatever discomfort that my disapproved comment might have brought to your consciences.

    But definitely, my now-vanished suspicion was NOT a “product of [my] mental delusion,” as you mindlessly alleged. It was too crude and too “trashy” for you to say that, given your aversion to trash talking. Are you slowly losing grip of your preference to clean talking? Just asking. It really made me wonder!

    By the way, could you please define for me what you understood by the word “delusional?”

    One good thing that resulted from this though is that now I have a very good idea how much good sense you can and cannot take!

    And there is really no point in making a reply to my lengthy comments here. At least on my part, by the very fact that you threw away some of my comments, I know I cannot be given a fair share in the ensuing exchanges of ideas. But it is all up to you! You may freely do so as you wish.

    • Your “Appeal to Pity” does not work for me. That is a fallacy in argument which will not prove that your claim is true. According to Nikzor.com, “An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. In the Appeal to Pity, it is the feelings of pity or sympathy that are substituted for evidence.” So stop saying that you “cannot be given a fair share in the ensuing exchanges of ideas”. It does not prove any of your previous claims like “the writer of this blog cannot think straight” and “the comment of Christiandefenders is as pathetic as his article”. Those are claims that have no clear basis.

      When I said that your comment is just a part of your mental delusion, the basis that I have came from your previous comment which accused me of “deleting one of your posts that alluded to the fact that I am trying to disrupt the flow of thought among the commenters in this post”. That is a delusion because it is “a false belief or opinion” that you “held strongly” on your comment. You should have asked me first to confirm it before making a lose judgment but you have done otherwise.

      Talking trash and writing a critique are two different things. If you want to know what a trash talk is, you simply have to read Abe Arganiosa’s blog and you will see a lot of trash talks. According to thefreedictionary.com, Trash talk means “To speak disparagingly, often insultingly or abusively about a person or group”. On the other hand a critique is “A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature”. Fortunately, the best word to describe your comment and criticize it is the word “delusion”.

      Let me remind you that this blog primarily aims to make a critique about the articles written by the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa. This blog is not about your statements but about his statements. If you want to represent him in a debate, you have to talk it over first with the Priest and then come back to us so we can discuss it. However, keep in mind that it should not be your responsibility to debate with us. It should be the Priest’s responsibility because he is regarded by the Catholics as “God’s Messenger”. If you represent him in a debate and lose, he may just probably call you a “man on the street” and “not an official debater” just like what he did to other Catholics which I explained on another article.

      https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/abe-arganiosa-goes-delusional/

  25. Christiandefenders said:

    Your “Appeal to Pity” does not work for me. That is a fallacy in argument which will not prove that your claim is true.

    MANNY SAID:

    I agree with you that “Appeal to Pity” is poor substitute for evidence. It does not work for me either. And I know for sure that I will never ever use it at any time AT ALL.

    You quoted me RIGHT when I said that “I cannot be given a fair share in the ensuing exchanges of ideas.”
    But you got it WRONG when you said it’s a FALLACY.

    Your readers for sure would know right away that what you just quoted was a STATEMENT OF FACT. It is so because it is based on EVIDENCE, and not on OPINION. The evidence is the fact that you disapproved, threw away, discarded, ignored, condemned (etc. Im just trying hard to avoid the word “deleted”) a number of my comments. Even my comment on a FELLOW reactor by the name of Adliv Vai went missing. If you STILL believe that my statement is not a STATEMENT OF FACT, then that is your own FALSE OPINION! You said a false opinion is a delusion. There, you got one already.

    Christiandefenders said:

    When I said that your comment is just a part of your mental delusion, the basis that I have came from your previous comment which accused me of “deleting one of your posts that alluded to the fact that I am trying to disrupt the flow of thought among the commenters in this post”. That is a delusion because it is “a false belief or opinion” that you “held strongly” on your comment. You should have asked me first to confirm it before making a lose judgment but you have done otherwise.

    MANNY SAID:

    If you had read my “missing” post carefully, I used quite a few conditional statements. You know it’s a conditional statement when you find the words “If . . .then,.” Conditional statements are by no means absolute. In short, my missing post did not accuse you of anything, nor was it making loose judgments, but only making ALLUSIONS. That was my way of asking you FIRST, for the purpose of CONFIRMING. . But since it went missing WITHOUT you giving any form of notice, I raised the issue of a possible technical glitch as well as a POSSIBLE bad intentions on your part. Take note, the key word is, “POSSIBLE.”

    And how about this: your supposed to be indecent nemesis Abe Aganiosa had even displayed some form of decency when he informed one of his reactors that his comment was DELETED.(Yes, he used the dreaded word “DELETED.”) And he went on to explain why he “deleted” it. On the other hand, you astutely position yourself and your group in total contrast with Arganiosa, projecting yourselves to be clean talking, cool and calculated decent persons, but then you never showed the DECENCY of notifying me that a number of my comments cannot be posted, until I called your attention regarding the matter.

    And if other readers shared my sentiments on this issue, please dont blame them.

    HOWEVER, a SIMPLE and TRUTHFUL and HONEST answer from you would have sufficed, and it would have erased all forms of suspicions, unfounded or otherwise. Your editing would have been unnecessary. Or maybe not.

    • What you are doing is not only an appeal to pity but also an appeal to emotion. You even mentioned that there are readers who may share the same sentiments with you regarding the issue. According to Nikzor.org, “This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. This sort of “reasoning” is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim.” I have the right to decide when to approved a comment or not. After all, monitoring your comments in the Internet is not my only task in a day so I need to prioritize and assess each comment.

      My readers know how you have been writing your comments strangely. Most of your so-called “statement of facts” are base on hearsay and contradicts what is true. They are opinionated and does not really reflect an honest narration of data. Why refer to the posts that was not yet approved while you can easily refer to your posts that are approved which can be easily seen by readers? Fortunately, majority of the readers of this blog does not really share the same sentiments because they are not self-conceited as you are. Only a self-conceited person will say such things.

      (Timothy 6:3-4) New American Standard Bible

      3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

      Reading not only your missing posts clearly shows that most of your accusations are not conditional rather you have already made a dishonest presumption in order to shed your dark delusions on this blog. Why say that your previous posts did not accuse me of anything while in fact it clearly does? In fact, you have accused me of a lot of things. You should better review your posts and reflect.

      Regarding the so-called “decency” of your Catholic priest when he informed a commenter that a comment was deleted, I really don’t see the decency on that. Abe Arganiosa has deleted the comments of our publishing editor and official writers no matter how decent they are. He has deleted the reminder of our editor/supervisor that he is just being used by a third party. Probably his standard is to delete all posts that would jeopardize his article no matter how decent it is. However, that is his freedom. In the same manner we have a freedom and the right to approve your comments at the right time or to disapprove them as we deem appropriate.

      All my responses are simple, truthful and honest but it does not suffice your perverted mind. Do you know why? Because the god of this world has blinded you.

      (2 Corinthians 4:4)

      In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

      You better have a self-assessment.

      Just a reminder! Stop covering for the lame priest.

  26. Chriatiandefenders said:

    As for the trash talking issue, I don’t think Bro. Eli is guilty of that at all base on the biblical insights which he explained to us.The phrase “son of the Devil” were used by Christ and the Apostle Paul in the bible.

    (John 8:44)

    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    (Acts 13:10)

    And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

    MANNY SAID:

    In John 8:44, Jesus is well justified when he said it, BECAUSE HE IS JESUS, SINLESS and UNDEFILED. He has FULL KNOWLEDGE of the hearts and soul of those he was talking with. He is after all the WORD, the GOD made flesh.

    The apostles, on the other hand, after much prayers and fasting, were INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit when they said it. After all, it was the HOLY SPIRIT who sent them off to see those bad guys.

    If you READ CAREFULLY the two verses that you cited, you’ll notice that there was NO EXPLICIT COMMAND from Jesus nor from the apostles that says to the effect that ANYONE may now freely CONDEMN those guilty of lying and other sins; that anyone may now freely call sinners as SONS OF THE DEVIL? There was nothing like that at all.

    Jesus and the apostles said what they said because it was PROPER of them. It was RIGHT of them. Because God was with them! But condemning and judging sinners the way Jesus and the apostles did is NOT PROPER to US. NOT RIGHT of US. In fact, this particular RIGHT does NOT BELONG TO US at all.

    In the first place, are we SINLESS AND PURE like Jesus? Do we have FULL KNOWLEDGE of the hearts and souls of our PERCEIVED ENEMIES? Are we sure we had FIRST heard the HOLY SPIRIT, the way the apostles did, before we uttered those words of CONDEMNATION against SINNERS, much less those who ONLY DISAGREED WITH US AND SIMPLY DID NOT LIKE US?

    Jesus said that only those who have no sin cast the first stone! It means that we CANNOT simply ENACT and APPLY the two verses that you cited, and then USE them to JUSTIFY our condemnation of our PERCEIVED enemies. WE should not do it, but, unfortunately, Bro Eli does, and he feels justified doing so. And Im sure you too, Christiandefenders and others from your group, feel the same way.

    What then is PROPER and RIGHT for us, ordinary Christians? What therefore are the EXPLICIT COMMANDS OF JESUS for us concerning our the proper disposition towards evil doers or sinners?

    Here are a few of those EXPLICIT COMMANDS which we should rather follow:

    In Mat.7:1-2, Jesus said,

    “STOP JUDGING, THAT YOU MAY NOT BE JUDGED. FOR AS YOU JUDGE, SO YOU WILL BE JUDGED, AND THE MEASURE WITH WHICH YOU MEASURE WILL BE MEASURED OUT TO YOU.”

    In Mat. 5: 22, Jesus had this to say,

    “BUT I SAY TO YOU, WHOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER WILL BE LIABLE TO JUDGEMENT, AND WHOEVER SAYS TO HIS BROTHER, ‘RAQA,’WILL BE ANSWERABLE TO SANHEDRIN, AND WHOEVER SAYS,’YOU FOOL,’ WILL BE LIABLE TO FIERY GEHENNA.”

    James 1:19-20 says,

    …EVERYONE SHOULD BE QUICK TO HEAR, SLOW TO SPEAK, SLOW TO WRATH, FOR THE WRATH OF A MAN DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.

    Romans 2:1, Paul says,

    . . .THEREFORE YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE, EVERYONE OF YOU WHO PASSES JUDGMENT. FOR BY THE STANDARD WITH WHICH YOU JUDGE ANOTHER YOU CONDEMN YOURSELF, SINCE YOU, THE JUDGE, DO THE VERY SAME THINGS.

    There are many other verses that speak of similar things, but I think the above verses are enough for us to THINK TWICE before ACTING LIKE GOD in CONDEMNING and JUDGING others as SONS OF THE DEVIL!

    • The funny thing about your response is the hypocrisy behind it. Why say that it is not proper for us to pass judgment while the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa which you represent has done that excessively about “presumed evils” on his blog? However, there are lots of flaws in everything that you have written and I will show it to our readers one by one .

      FLAW #1

      In John 8:44, Jesus is well justified when he said it, BECAUSE HE IS JESUS, SINLESS and UNDEFILED. He has FULL KNOWLEDGE of the hearts and soul of those he was talking with. He is after all the WORD, the GOD made flesh.

      The apostles, on the other hand, after much prayers and fasting, were INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit when they said it. After all, it was the HOLY SPIRIT who sent them off to see those bad guys.

      If you READ CAREFULLY the two verses that you cited, you’ll notice that there was NO EXPLICIT COMMAND from Jesus nor from the apostles that says to the effect that ANYONE may now freely CONDEMN those guilty of lying and other sins; that anyone may now freely call sinners as SONS OF THE DEVIL? There was nothing like that at all

      Fortunately, the bible is not composed of only two verses. Although, there is no explicit command on passing judgment on the verses that I have quoted earlier, we can read something about passing judgment by looking at other verses from the bible.

      http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/to-judge-others-is-an-act-inspired-by-the-holy-spirit/

      A wise Christian can judge. The notion that we- must-not-judge-because-God-is-the-only-rightful-judge is not biblical. Our Lord Jesus Christ once said that:

      (Matthew 7:1-5) Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

      These pronouncements of the Lord Jesus (if carefully considered from context) does not mean that a Christian must not judge. He is directing these to hypocrites. Hypocrites criticize and judge others of things which they themselves have, more grievously. A beam is greater than a mote! This is the practice of false preachers.

      (Romans 2:21-22) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

      It is not wrong to say “thou shall not steal” if you steal not,nor is it wrong to criticize someone who commits adultery if you are not committing adultery. If we judge somebody who continuously commits adultery, that by such act he can not enter heaven, we are not sinning against God because it is God’s judgment that we are passing to such person. In fact, it is our duty as Christians to judge those who recklessly transgress God’s law.

      (John 7:24) Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

      In the true Church of God, it is God’s doctrine that Christians must know how to judge rightfully among themselves.

      (1 Corinthians 6:1-5, 9-10) Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

      Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

      The Apostle Paul teaches the Christians at Corinth to know how to ‘rightfully judge’ within themselves because the Corinthians have been so lenient in judging those who commits immorality and diverse transgressions, which the Apostle Paul ‘judged’ saying that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God.

      (1 Corinthians 5:3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed.

      What is prohibited by the Bible among Christians is to say evil against any brother in faith, presuming without basis that, a brother is doing evil. In such a manner, Christians are prohibited to judge.

      (James 4:11-12) Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

      ‘Presumed evil’ can be wrong! Only God knows the whole truth about a person, so He is the only rightful judge — in such a situation; but the obvious works or deeds of a so-called brother bespeaks of the kind of heart that is in him. If a so-called brother is continuously committing sins and transgressing God’s law openly, we can judge or pass on God’s judgment to such people. Seeing somebody who openly transgresses God’s will, gives us the burden or obligation of doing something to stop such a folly.

      (Leviticus 5:1) And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

      True Christian love does not rejoice in iniquities…

      (1 Corinthians 13:4, 6) Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;

      Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth…RSV

      …nor allows it.

      (Romans 1:32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      FLAW # 2

      Jesus said that only those who have no sin cast the first stone! It means that we CANNOT simply ENACT and APPLY the two verses that you cited, and then USE them to JUSTIFY our condemnation of our PERCEIVED enemies. WE should not do it, but, unfortunately, Bro Eli does, and he feels justified doing so. And Im sure you too, Christiandefenders and others from your group, feel the same way.

      The verse that you used to point out the statement “those who have no sin cast the first stone” is not even originally part of the inspired scriptures. If you will just read the footnotes of the Catholic Translations that you may have, it will explain to you that it does not appear on original manuscripts.

      Brother Eli is a preacher. A preacher has a more serious responsibility of speaking against wrongdoings or open transgression of people, especially among his peers.

      (Isaiah 58:1) Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

      Crying aloud or writing a blog to show people the misdeeds, especially of pretending preachers, is a divine mandate found, both, in Old and New Testament books.

  27. To Christiandefender:

    Prove to me that you are sinless, and I will accept whatever judgement you may pass on me, or to anyone else. If you are a sinner, then Mat.7:1-5 applies to you as well.

    You made it appear that my statements are flawed. But it totally escaped your attention that you actually confirmed what I said. You said: “Only God knows the whole truth about a person, so he is the only rightful judge.” That’s precisely the whole point of my argument.

    When you condemn a person as being a “son of the devil,” there is already a presumption of the whole truth about the person. It assumes a knowledge proper to God alone. Condemning a person in this way is already a plain usurpation of the divine prerogative to judge a person as such. The verses that you cited in no way contradict this point, rather they supported it.

    You seem to see a lot of “flaws” in everything that I’ve written. But in saying so you are only revealing how shallow your reasoning is.

    • The funny thing about your comment is the pretension and hypocrisy which is very evident on all of your statements. Why are you now restricting my way of judgment when all you did was to judge the writers of this blog ever since you started commenting? The verses which I have shown written by Paul to the Romans best applies to your case.

      (Romans 2:21-22)

      Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

      In your standard, a person should be sinless before making any judgment. However, have you presented yourself sinless when you made your judgments regarding the writers and the articles of this blog? If it is not proper for anyone to judge, then you should not be posting any comment as well because when you make a comment, all you did was to make judgments. In addition, Abe Arganiosa is also guilty of being a persecutor and a judge on his blog. However, was he able to present himself as sinless?

      We don’t just condemn a person as a son of the devil. On the other hand, we have our basis to say that base on the word of God.

      (John 8:44)

      Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

      A son of the devil is a liar and a murderer which we believe Abe Arganiosa is guilty of base on his blog.

    • One more thing! I didn’t confirm what you said that…

      You made it appear that my statements are flawed. But it totally escaped your attention that you actually confirmed what I said. You said: “Only God knows the whole truth about a person, so he is the only rightful judge.” That’s precisely the whole point of my argument.

      You should perhaps review what I’ve qouted.

      A wise Christian can judge. The notion that we- must-not-judge-because-God-is-the-only-rightful-judge is not biblical.

  28. Christiandefenders said:

    “The funny thing about your comment is the pretension and hypocrisy which is very evident on all your statements. Why are you restricting my way of judgment when all you did was to judge the writers on this blog since you start commenting?”

    MANNY SAID:

    That remark of yours is the real funny one. I can sense you are getting desperate already. Dont worry, I understand why.

    You don’t have any problem in judging your opponents Abe Arganiosa and Parabanog as “Sons of the Devil,” don’t you? You felt justified doing this because in the Bible Jesus and the apostles did the same thing, as explained to you by Bro Eli. Am I correct?

    To simplify matters for you, let me ask you these simple questions: Are you Jesus? If not, are you one of the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pass judgment that is reserved to God alone? Did the Holy Spirit talk to you into making such a “son-of-the-devil” Judgment against Arganiosa and Parabanog? If your answer is yes, then I’ll bow to you. And I’ll take back every word that I’ve said in this blog.

    But, I have to remind you that the JUDGMENT that we are talking about here is the Judgment that is Proper to God alone; a Judgment that presupposes the “whole truth about a person.” That is, the Judgment that says that a person is a “SON OF THE DEVIL.” And what I was trying to do is to tell you that we cannot just freely, easily, arbitrarily make this judgment without usurping God’s prerogative. That’s the reason behind St. Pauls exhortation for us to “Judge not…” (Mat.7:1). Also, because we might end up “condemning ourselves” since we might also be guilty of the same offense by which we accuse our PERCEIVED ENEMIES (Rom 2:1). On this issue, I would rather follow St. Paul’s advise rather than that of Bro Eli. But unfortunately you have chosen to ignore St.Paul in favor of Bro Eli. But it’s really your choice. There’s nothing I can do about it.

    Now, the “judgment” that you accuse me of is the judgment that is properly done as an exercise of MAN’S RATIONAL nature.

    I did see some flaws in your arguments, and I called your attention to it. I said that your THINKING was FALLACIOUS, because it was so. And you know why I said so. How can anybody say it otherwise? But then, you retorted and said that I also “displayed a level of ignorance and instability of thinking.” You had your own reason for saying so. And recently, you even made a rash judgment about the pretension and hyprocisy of ALL my statements, including your careless presumption that I represented Abe Arganiosa. Judgments like these we can freely do as belonging to our rational nature. Did I restrict you from making this kinds of judgments? Not at all. The restrictions occur only in your mind.

    I made a “judgment” on the way you build up your arguments according to the manner of your thinking, but this judgment was never directed against your “person.” There is nothing personal there. Or at least for me. If you mistakenly took my comments as a personal attack against your character, that’s your opinion, not mine.

    Did you ever recall that, by reason of your faulty thinking, I called you “bobo,” “stupid,” “tarantado,”
    “tanga,” etc? Not at all. Though, I did recall Bro Eli spewed these very same words against his opponents, on national television at that!

    In contrast, I remember that you called me “delusional,” with an allusion to being a “hypocite” and “pretentious,” and as somebody who has a “perverted mind,” as well as “self-conceited.” Perhaps you are not aware of it, but these words of yours constitute an attack on the character of the person. Character assassination, as others would say. This is clearly a personal attack. You resented Arganiosa’s trash talking, but how different is he from you when it comes to personal attacks? Of course you would not admit to the same guilt as Arganiosa (Roman 2:1). But I understand.

    Lastly, I can only hope that this running exchange of ideas would just stay at the level of ideas. There is no need to bring it down to a level of personal attacks, insults, and character assassination. Should you choose to go down that way, you can be sure I will not be there.

    • You are really making the readers, writers and editors in our department laugh. You know why? Because what was written in a verse of the Bible applies to your character.

      (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

      And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

      You are not only desperate but also delusional because you said that I am desperate. I will not be surprise if your fellow Catholic believers will also say that on their blogs because that’s what you really do. You are claiming something despite of invalidating evidence that belies your claim which constitutes a delusion.

      And yes! I do not have any problem of judging Abe Arganiosa as a son of the devil. And yes! I feel justified to do this because the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles did the same thing. I do not have problems if what I am doing is applicable base on the words of God in the Bible. Going back to what the Lord Jesus Christ said, it was his declaration that liars and murderers who do not hear his words are sons of the devil who is also a liar and a murderer.

      (John 8:44)

      44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

      The Apostle John said that we should try every spirit whether they are of God. Remember that John is not speaking with the Lord Jesus but with Christians.

      (1 John 4:1:)

      Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

      Christian were not required by John to become the Lord Jesus Christ in order to try every spirit. Fortunately, when I tried the spirit that is with Abe Arganiosa, I concluded that the spirit that he possess is of the devil making him a son of the devil. He is a liar because he persistently lies. He is also a murderer because he commits murder on his blog. Do I have to present the lies and murders written on his blog? Let me present some of them for the convenience of the readers.

      THE FACT THAT YOUR RELIGION IS LOOSING CASES MEANS YOUR LEADER AND HIS COHORTS ARE DOING A LOT OF ILLEGAL ACTS.

      Abe Arganiosa doesn’t even have a solid evidence to prove this. It is a lie to say that we are losing cases. It is also a lie to say that we are doing illegal acts. Bro. Eli has been accused in the courts of men so many times within the span of time that he spent in his ministry for 43 years. He has endured more than 30 court trials in which most cases were dismissed. Some are still pending but no one was successful to prove him guilty. It is quite odd that Abe Arganiosa has courage to announce on his blog that Bro. Eli Soriano is guilty of a case which is still pending in court. I we will base our reasoning on the law of man just like what he (Abe Arganiosa) is doing, it is safe to say that our preacher remains innocent if we adhere to the presumption of innocence in the Philippine Constitution.

      In addition, we can always refer to the website http://jakeastudillo.wordpress.com/ in order to belie is claim.

      However, let us also not forget that the Lord Jesus Christ was accused and was declared guilty in the court of Pontius Pilate; St. Stephen was accused and declared guilty in the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia; John the baptizer was beheaded; Paul was scourged; John the beloved was exiled to the Island of Patmos. Does it prove that these people of God are evil because they have been accused falsely and persecuted by men to the point of death? Abe Arganiosa can trash his talks as long as he wants but his fallacies cannot prove that Bro. Eli Soriano is an evil person nor the teaching that he preaches is incorrect.

      I have already proven on my earlier reply that to judge is a Christian act. The judgment that was bestowed on Christians is a judgment that is divine. To say that Abe Arganiosa is a son of the devil is a judgment base on the bible.

      Also, it was not St. Paul who exhorted not to judge in Matthew 7:1. It was actually the Lord Jesus Christ who said that. It is very funny that somebody who does not even know how to quote from the bible properly wants to teach me how to judge biblically.

      St. Pauls exhortation for us to “Judge not…” (Mat.7:1)

      Since you repeated your stated referring to the admonition of Paul to the Romans, let me repeat also what I have quoted earlier.

      http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/to-judge-others-is-an-act-inspired-by-the-holy-spirit/

      Bro. Eli says

      (Romans 2:21-22) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

      It is not wrong to say “thou shall not steal” if you steal not,nor is it wrong to criticize someone who commits adultery if you are not committing adultery. If we judge somebody who continuously commits adultery, that by such act he can not enter heaven, we are not sinning against God because it is God’s judgment that we are passing to such person. In fact, it is our duty as Christians to judge those who recklessly transgress God’s law.

      (John 7:24) Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

      In the true Church of God, it is God’s doctrine that Christians must know how to judge rightfully among themselves.

      There is nothing wrong to adhere with what was said by Bro. Eli Soriano because Bro. Eli Soriano adheres to what was written by St. Paul on his letter; Adhering to Bro. Eli means adhering to St. Paul; Adhering to St. Paul means adhering to Christ; Adhering to Christ means adhering to God. Do you want me to prove that?

      You may not be restricting me to say that you have hypocrisy and pretension base on your claim but you are restricting me to judge and call Abe Arganiosa as a son of the devil which I’ve presented to be base on the word of God. A liar and a murderer is a son of a devil.

      Another funny thing is this declaration from you which I will quote in order to highlight it.

      I made a “judgment” on the way you build up your arguments according to the manner of your thinking, but this judgment was never directed against your “person.” There is nothing personal there.

      This is another reason why I can say that you have hypocrisy and pretension. Can you not recall on how many times you have repeatedly said that I display a level of ignorance and instability of thinking? Can you not recall on how many times you said that I cannot think straight? Perhaps you should sharpen your mind or drink a memory enhancer in order to recall it if you don’t.

      An attack on a persons character is not only restricted on calling him fool, dumb or crazy. As long as your critique statement refers to a character of a person, that is an attack on a persons character which you are also doing.

      I am completely aware that I call you delusional, hypocrite,pretentious and somebody with a perverted mind as well as self conceited. I don’t even need to drink a memory enhancer to recall that. However, unlike Abe Arganiosa, I was able to present my grounds in order to attribute those words to your character. I have a strong stand with what I said and it is not base on hearsay. It is completely different from what Abe Arganosa does so don’t try to equate my arguments with what he wrote.

      In addition, are you not here to represent Abe Arganiosa or the the Catholic Church? If not, are you speaking on your own and is it just a waste of time for me to entertain your comments on this blog? From which faith are you representing here?

      It is also a hypocrisy to say that you will not go down to a level of personal attacks because you already did. That was in fact the introduction of your character when you made your earlier comments which compels us to retaliate but in a rational and biblical manner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: