(HOW PRISTINE TRUTH PUT YOU IN BIG SHAME)
Mula noong Abril 1, 2016 ay inire-repost po namin ang mga naging sagutan nina “Antonio Ebangelista” at “Pristine Truth” noong 2015 upang ipaala-ala kay AE, at sa kaniyang mga napapaniwala, at upang malaman ng madla na noon pa ay sinagot na si AE sa kaniyang mga paratang laban sa Iglesia at KUNG PAPAANO SIYA NALAGAY SA MALAKING KAHIHIYAN.
AE, REMEMBER THIS
Patuloy lang na naglalathala si “Antonio Ebangelista” ng mga artikulo na ipinakikita lang ang mga propertie ng Iglesa na naibenta na. Subalit, ang mga ito ay hindi nagpatunay na may anomalya sa Iglesia, kyndi NAGPAPATUNAY PA NGA NA TOTOO ANG ATING MGA SINASABI UKOL SA ISYUNG ITO. Lumalabas na si Antoino Ebangelista pa mismo ang nagbibigay ng patotoo na tayo ang tama at siya ang mali. Kaya sa ikatlong artikulo na pagtalakay niya sa mga properties ng Iglesia na naibenta na ay masasabi natin na “Score Three for Us and Zero for AE.” Ang ikinatuwiran ni “AE” na ang “Roxas Boulevard property raw ay isang “Future site” para sa pagtatayo ng gusaling sambahan o kapilya ay nagpapakita lang ng KAWALAN NIYA NG PAGPAPAHALAGA SA BAGAY NA ESPIRITUWAL AT KABANALAN. Kung bakit, tunghayan ang pagtralakay ni Pristrine Truth ukol sa paksang ito:
HE DID IT AGAIN!
WE SAY IS TRUE
SCORE THREE FOR US AND ZERO FOR AE
Answering the Roxas Boulevard
IN his futile attempt to prove that there are now anomalies and corruption inside the Church, Antonio Ebanghelista continously posting articles regarding prime properties of the Church being sold. We already answered his past articles regarding this issue:
AE’s article: “introduction: Prime INC Properties that are for sale?”
OUR ANSWER: “SOME PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH ARE SOLD! SO WHAT?”
AE’s article: INC Prime Properties Sold: Part I (The Tagaytay property Issue)”
OUR ANSWER: “THANK YOU AE FOR CONFIRMING WHAT WE SAY IS TRUE”
ANSWERING THE TAGAYTAY PROPERTY ISSUE
AE’s article: INC Prime Properties Sold: Part 2 (The Ugong property Issue)”
OUR ANSWER: “SCORE TWO FOR US AND ZERO FOR AE”
ANSWERING THE UGONG PROPERTY ISSUE
However, in his articles featuring the sold prime properties of the Church, the only thing that he managed to do is showing documents that these properties were already sold, but IN ALL HIS ARTICLES REGARDING THIS ISSUE HE FAILED TO ANSWER AND INSTEAD CONFIRMED THESE FOLLOWING POINTS:
(1) Selling properties is not an anomaly because the Church Administration has the authority and all the legal rights do so.
“Section 164. Such corporations shall have the right to purchase, hold, mortgage, or sell real estate for its church...” (The Corporation Law of the Philippines, Section 164.)
He always avoid to tackle this point of ours in his articles regarding the Tagaytay property issue and the the Ugong property issue. He ahain avoided to tackle this issue in his latest article discussing the Roxas Boulevard property issue. He continuously avoiding this issue because he knows he can’t refute this point. THIS IS A FACT THAT HE CAN’T ARGUE.
(2) No locale, district, ot any department of the Church, not even the Executive Minister using these sold properties, thus these properties are in the state of “no loner needed by the Church” or “the Church has no longer use for it.”
Antonio Ebangelista himself confirmed that the Tagaygay property is “no longer needed” by the Church:
“Let’s see if you can recognize this once-a-tranquil-haven for Ka Eraño G. Manalo and his whole Family, now a ghost town of useless abandonment.” [Antonio Ebangelista, “INCProperties Sold: Part 1” June 12, 2015]
The Ugong property was the former location of the INC Radio transmitter tower, but in 1995 the radio transmitter tower was transfered to Ubando, Bulacan, and Ugong locale has already a House of Worship built in a nearby property. Thus, the Church has no longer use for this property.
In his latest article, Antonio Ebangelista failed to prove that the Roxas property is currently use by a locale, a district or a Church’s department.
Thus, AGAIN, Antonio Ebangelista failed to refute our point that these sold properties are no longer needed or the Church has no longer use for them, that no locale, no district , no Church’s department is using these properties.
(3) The Church Administration has all the legal rights to sell or dispose properties, more so those properties the Church ‘has no longer use for it” or “no longer needed.”
In failing to disprove our point that the Church Administration has all the legal rights or authority to sell or dispose properties no longer use or the Church has no need for it, and in failing to refute our argument that no locale, district, or Church’s department is using these properties being sold, thus, HE FAILED BLATANTLY TO PROVE THAT THERE IS ANOMALY OCCURRED IN SELLING THOSE PROPERTIES.
(4) There are expenses in maintaining such properties including the taxes and upkeep. Not a small amount of money is use for the expenses in maintaining such properties. As what we said, “Saan kukunin ang malaking gastos sa pagbabayad sa malaking halagang gugulin sa taxes ng mga properties na ito at sa maintenance at securities ng mga ito? Sa abuloy ng mga kapatid? Kaya, lumalabas na para kay Antonio Ebanghelista ay mali na ibenta ang mga properties na ito, at tama na panatilihin ito kahit gumugol ng malaki sa pananatili ng mga ito na kukunin sa abuloy ng Iglesia.”
In his article about the Ugong property issue, he made a futile attempt to answer this point. He argues that “we should not worry about the expenses for maintaining these properties.” BUT HE FAILED TO ANSWER WHY WE SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT THE EXPENSES FOR MAINTAINING THESE PROPERTIES. I am waiting for him to say that we should not worry about the expenses for maintaining these properties because he is willing to shoulder all the expenses. WHY HE DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO SHOULDER ALL THE EXPENSES? Because he himself knew that large amount of money is needed for maintaining these properties because as he himself attested, these are “PRIME” properties. Regarding the Ugong property this is what he said:
“Wait a minute… this can’t possibly be right… Why would the Sanggunian approve the sale of a COMPLETELY USABLE, PRIME LOT, STRATEGICALLY LOCATED IN ONE OF THE HIGH-VALUED LOCATIONS IN THE METRO?”
Regarding the Roxas Boulevard property, this is what he attested:
“RIGHT ACROSS “CITY OF DREAMS MANILA” MAKING IT A HIGH VALUE PROPERTY IN A HIGHLY VIABLE LOCATION”
So, Brethren, next time Antonio Ebangelista insists that these properties should not be sold, ASK HIM IF HE WILL SHOULDER ALL THE EXPENSES FOR MAINTAINING THOSE PRIME PROPERTIES? [Sa susunod na magpilit si Antonio Ebanghelista na hindi dapat ibenta ang mga propetrties na ito, itanong natin sa kaniya na kung handa ba siya na balikatin ang lahat ng gagastusin sa pagpapanatili sa mga prime properties na ito?]
(5) Disposing properties no longer needed or we have no use for it and instead we spend large amount of money in maintaining it is not only being practical, but also being truly efficient in managing the finances of the Church.
Disposing these prime properties which the Church no longer needed or no use for them, is not “mismanagement” but a proof of being efficient in managing the finances of the Church. [Ano ang tawag doon sa isang tao na pinananatili ang isang property na malaki ang nagugol na gastos o kumakain ng malaki sa budget ng pamilya subalit wala namang gamit, hindi ginagamit, hindi pinakikinabangan?]
In failing to prove that these properties is still needed by a locale, a district, or a Church’s department, is also failing to prove that the Church Administration is committing a “mismanagement “ of the finances of the Church.
Which is practical and which is not? Which is being efficient and which is not? Maintaining properties although we spend large amount of money in maintaining it but the Church has no use for it, or disposing properties to avoid the expenses in maintaining it because that Church has no longer use for it?
Establishing in the future a house of worship on this property in Roxas Boulevard? Are you serious?
In his latest article featuring the Roxas Boulevard property, this is what he said:
“Before, the Church administration with its forward visionary stance, would acquire properties, even if we don’t have a use for it yet, because they know that the day will come when the church will need it in its vast expansion and activities, and the price it will have to pay along with the cost of maintaining it, is negligible compared to the amount needed to buy the property many years after when it is finally needed, thus saving the church a lot of money for other uses.”
WELL, “…the Church Administration…would acquire properties, even if we don’t have a use for it yet, because they know that the day will come when the church will need it in its vast expansion and activities, and the price it will have to pay along with the cost of maintaining it, is negligible compared to the amount needed to buy the property many years after when it is finally needed” THIS IS TRUE BUT CERTAINLY NOT TO THE ROXAS BOULEVARD PROPERTY.
Is Antonio Ebangelista saying that the Roxas Boulevard property is a future site for a House of Worship? Only a half-wit, braindead, stupid, moron will say that. Why? This is what Antonio Ebangelista himself testified regarding the Roxas Boulevard property:
“RIGHT ACROSS “CITY OF DREAMS MANILA” MAKING IT A HIGH VALUE PROPERTY IN A HIGHLY VIABLE LOCATION”
Building a House of Worship right across “CITY OF DREAMS MANILA”? Why only a half-wit, braindead, stupid, moron will say that? What is “City of Dreams Manila”?
“City of Dreams Manila is an integrated RESORT AND CASINO LOCATED AT THE HEART OF ENTERTAINMENT CITY. The resort features 3 luxurious hotel brands that rival other five-star hotels in Metro Manila. It is strategically positioned and very near Ninoy Aquino International Airport, SM Mall of Asia Complex, SMX Convention Center and other key destinations.” [http://www.cityofdreams.com.ph/]
A House of Worship just across a resort and casino, strategically positioned and very near SM Mall of Asia Complex, and other casinos and bars, and at the heart of the entertainment city? Antonio Ebangelista, are you serious?
I’m sure now you agree that only a half-wit, braindead, stupid, moron will say that the Roxas Boulevard property is a suitable future site for a House of Worship.
WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS REALLY SAY?
The documents that Antonio Ebangelista published in his articles regarding “INC prime properties being sold” only prove that these property is already been sold, nothing more.
Are they evidences that there are now anomalies and corruption inside the Church? Anomaly is a deviation from the norm, the rules, regulation and law. Corruption is “moral perversion and dishonest proceedings.” The Church Administration has all the legal rights and authority to dispose (sell) properties especially those no longer needed. No locale, district or department is using them. There are large expenses in maintaining them. The Church no longer needed them. Thus, where’s the anomaly and corruption in selling these properties?
Therefore, in view of these facts, Antonio Ebangelista and the people behind him are only deceiving the people when they posted these documents and saying that these prove that there are now anomalies and corruption inside the Church.