ANSWERING “FALLEN ANGELS”
(“End-Time Antichrists”)
Point-by-point discussion answering those
opposing
the Church Administration
part 69
FALLEN
ANGELS
DON’T
RESPOND, THEY RECYCLE
Answering
the Issue regarding the
sold Church's
properties
A thinking person can easily
detect if a person cannot stand his ground or defend his position – they don’t
respond, they recycle. When we say that “Fallen Angels don’t respond, they
recycle”, what we mean is that after we answered and refuted their arguments or
evidences they posted in the internet or social media, they don’t respond to
our answer or refutation, instead, they will again post the same arguments,
the same evidences, again and again and again.
This is what we can see in the
posts in the internet of the Fallen Angels like Rovic Canono, a.k.a. “Sher Lock.”
Many of his arguments and evidences were already used by “Antonio Ebangelista”
and we already answered and refuted those arguments and evidences. “AE” never
responded to our answers or refutations. However, the same arguments and
evidences were again used by other Fallen Angels. Like “Antonio Ebangelista”,
instead of responding to our answers or refutations, what they did is posting
the same arguments and evidences. Maybe, they think that they can deceive those
who haven’t read our answers or refutations. And Rovic Canono is the worst of
them all. He again, and again, and again posts in his timeline the same
arguments and evidences we already answered and refuted.
Take for example their
allegation that the Church is already bankrupt and now has a 2 billion debt from
a bank. Their proof in saying so is that the Church sold properties. We already
answered and refuted this argument not once but several times. But here they go
again, instead of answering or responding to our refutation, they posted again
the same arguments. However, let us ponder these points:
(1) Not because a person sell
a property it means that he is bankrupt and/or has a debt from a bank. This
argument of the Fallen Angels is a fallacy called NON-SEQUITUR, “it doesn’t
follows.” There are many reasons why a person sell a property (let us call him
“person A”). If a person disagree with the reason given by “person A” and
accused him that he sold his property because he is bankrupt and has a debt
from a bank, it is the one who accused “person A” (let us call the accuser “person B”) who has
the obligation to prove or present evidences to back his allegation against
“person A”. Everyone knows that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. If “person
B” cannot provide an evidence to support his claim, then what we must accept is
the status quo, that “person A” sold his property for another reason, not the
one he is being accused of.
(2) One who accuse a person
with a crime must show the “link” between the evidence and the allegation.
Without that ”link”, the evidence is irrelevant. For example, you cannot just
show “gun” and accuse a person that he is the killer. You must show the “link”
between the “gun” and the “accused.” Is the gun owned by the accused? Did
someone saw the accused holding that “gun” and used it against the victim?
Without this “link”, the “gun” is irrelevant in the case. So, please Fallen
Angels, show us the “link” between your “evidences” (the Church sold
properties) and your “allegation” (the Church is bankrupt and has a 2 billion
debt from a bank). In this case, the “link” is that the “money” paid for the
property that been sold was used to pay for the alleged INC’s debt from a bank. Without
this “link” the evidences and arguments you given are irrelevant to the issue. If you cannot show any
proof that the money paid for the property that been sold was used to pay for
the alleged debt from a bank, you are only making an “assumption”, “accusation,”
just like what we say in Tagalog, “tsismis lang.”
(3) We can categorize to two the
“evidences” that Rovic and his fellow Fallen Angels posted in the social media
regarding the properties of the Church that had been sold or being sold. First,
there are those that they say being sold or had been sold, but the truth is,
these properties are not for sale. Take for example the INC Scenic property.
Rovic posted in the social media that this property is already for sale.
But, Brother Joe Ventilacion, the Resident Minister of Scenic, responded and
refuted their allegation. Thus, proving that the Church never sold any
properties still being used by a locale, district or any department of the
Church.
(4) Secondly, there are indeed
properties of the Church that had been sold. But, these prove otherwise.
Instead of proving that the Church is already bankrupt and has a debt from a
bank, those properties had been sold prove the efficiency of the present Church
Administration in managing the Church’s finances.
Everyone will agree that not
because a person sold his property it means that he is bankrupt or has debt from a bank. There are those who sell properties because they have no use for
it anymore. There are people who sell his old car because he already have two
new cars. It is only being practical. This practice can also be seen in locales
and districts. There are locales which sell their old electricfans because
their house of worship is already air-conditioned. District offices usually
sell their unused properties.
It’s Rovic himself through his
post regarding these sold properties that proves that these properties are no
longer in use, not in use or no longer needed. For example, the property in
Baguio. No locale or district using it. It's a rest-house used by the former
Executive Minister. But, because the present Executive Minister is no longer
using it, and no locale or district is using it, that’s why the Church
Administration sold it. Besides, the Church was spending a large amount of
money for it’s upkeep, maintenance, security and annual tax. If a property is
no longer used or needed, and we are spending a large amount of money in keeping
it, what would you do? Right, sell it.
How about the property in
Pansol, Laguna? That property is not a lot where a house of worship is located.
No! It’s a RESORT! A private resort! Wait a minute, I thought this people are
against in the Church maintaining a non-religious, purely business edifice or
property? Talking of DOUBLE STANDARD, the Fallen Angels say that the Church
should not engage in any business, but now they are against in the Church’s
selling or disposing a private resort in Pansol, Laguna? But, there are brethren who went to
this resort? Yes, but not everyday there are brethren visiting this resort. Also,
comparing the annual expenses of maintaining this resort (the security, upkeep,
maintenance, and also including the taxes) with its income, the expenses are
much larger than the income. If the expenses of a property is much larger than
the income, what would you do with this property? Right, sell it.
Thus, this only proves that
the selling of these properties show how the present Church Administration is
very efficient in managing the finances of the Church.
Please, Fallen Angels, respond
and refute our answer! But, as we seen, instead of responding our answers, they
again and again and again recycle their “trash” and “irrelevant” arguments and
evidences. This only proves that Fallen Angels cannot defend their position, they cannot stand their ground. Thus, their intention is not to tell the truth, but only
to spread lies and discredit the present Church Administration.
Very informative. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete