ANSWERING “FALLEN ANGELS”
Point-by-point discussion answering those opposing
the Church Administration
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.