Merch Jarloe T.

Rubite Special Topics

AB Philosophy 4

The True Church of Christ!

Revealing the truth makes someone cry and someone fly. It is really hard to accept things

that we thought to be true especially when it is maintained for many of years. Like in Iglesia ni

Cristo even though they could not present their faith in a logical way, people still believe in them.

I know that they have gone wrong in interpreting the bible for it is sometimes cannot be fully

interpreted. And that is how Iglesia fail. I am not saying this as a Christian but because I am a

student who have studied logic and that is enough to see where they failed.

The video of Father Nilo have doubtlessly increased my faith on our Church. All his points

are really clear and true that the Iglesia ni Cristo is nothing but a religion without real foundation

and a result by a wrong interpretation. It is only a religion for those who really don’t have the

true knowledge about our religion (the Roman Catholic). That is why it is all thanks to Father

Nilo, may he rest in peace, for stating all the truths about our religion and also the Iglesia ni

Cristo.

As what I can learn in the video, people nowadays tend to search for understanding and

actual manifestation of God just like in the Old Testament. For me, people of Iglesia ni Cristo are

like this and they seem to be like an empiricists who only believe what they can physically

observe. For example, in the bible according to the Revelation, in the ends of time, there will be

an angel who will come and Iglesia ni Cristo have believed that Felix Manalo is the angel it talks
about. Simply, they didn’t care about the context, the author, and the aim of the passage or

readings rather they are blinded by the new and observable explanations which are illogical.

In the video, I can see the weak side of our church in accordance with the reading of the

bible and that is understandable. It is weak because some of the texts especially the Apocalypse,

they are not fully and clearly interpreted and understood. And that is why I am really amazed

about the humility to our stand that we can’t grasp further the bible. Also that is why I don’t like

Iglesia ni Cristo because they are eager to interpret the bible to the point that they lost track in

the true aim and interpretation. Thus for me, it is their downfall.

Lastly, in connection to Faith and Reason, it is really perfect that they are not separable in

order to produce the authentic and real truth. As I look at the religion of Felix Manalo it seems to

me that Faith really overpowered reason and thus become a religion of fanaticism.
Merch Jarloe T. Rubite Special Topics
AB Philosophy 4

Is Felix Manalo really the angel of the end times like what the Iglesia ni Cristo says? This

question sometimes make me laugh for the reasons that the Iglesia ni Cristo are providing. It is

not only for that claim but because of their ways of interpreting the Bible.

In the video of the debate of Roman Catholic and Iglesia ni Cristo one thing is clear to me

and that is, if there is no openness, there is no communication happening. Or in the video there

is no argument happening.

Iglesia ni Cristo is always missing the point when the Roman Catholic asks or presents his

side of the debate. Firstly, the Roman Catholic have pointed that the translations that the Iglesia

presented are not in accordance with their interpretation. It is said there that this time is in the

“Ends of time” because Felix Manalo and the other situations he interpreted in the bible have

taken place. Felix Manalo is the angel that God sent for the “ends of time”, Iglesia ni Cristo

believed, but Roman catholic said that these verses where they take their interpretation is not

really understandable for it is a prophecy and no date is given their. The “ends of time” refers

not like the time that we know in human ways but it is more than that. Thus the Iglesia are just

very eager to interpret the bible even though it is so hard to comprehend and as expected ended

to failure.

Another reason they present there that it is really Felix Manalo is the angel because the

bible stated that the Angel will come from the “far east” and because the Philippines is the first
country where the sun rises, they thought that it is really true. The Roman Catholic have

attacked this point also because it is not logical to say that the “far east” indicated in the bible is

Philippines because it doesn’t make sense.

All of what Iglesia ni Cristo are presenting is truly worth laughing. It seems that Felix

Manalo is out of his mind when he concluded those things they believed in. It is easy to interpret

things but in terms of interpreting for the sake of eagerness and stubbornness it will end to

something disastrous. And it will be more disastrous if it is being propagated to other people

who are also easy to control and lead them to their fall also.

Lastly, I hope people will not be narrow minded in what they believe in. Sometimes it is

better to challenge what you believe and find out if it is really worth believing or worth changing.

Thus, in this time, we must always reflect our reasons for our beliefs in order to build our great

faith in God.
 Postmodern period have taken the extreme of all period. It is the time where everything

is okay and everyone is free. We are

Postmodernism – possibly the most used and least understood term in art discourses in

the last few decades. Yet while the worlds of literature, architecture, visual arts, philosophy and

popular culture have questioned authoritative and patriarchal canonic systems – enabling new

forms of critical discourse to emerge, art music has been slow to embrace discussion about

postmodernism. This seems odd given that many characteristics of Australian art music since the

early ‘80s are typically ‘postmodern’ in nature (e.g. pastiche, quotation, disunity, dismantling of

the authentic art/popular culture hierarchy). How do today’s composers, performers and

reviewers now understand the term, its history, and its connotations in other fields of culture?

We, as Christians, might now ask, "Why is this so bad?" Postmodernism allows us our

own truth, so we Christians can acknowledge it against the atheistic and agnostic concepts of

truth so prevalent in among scholars today. Does not postmodernism promise to preserve our

intellectual freedom that was threatened by more antagonistic movements such as logical

positivism, behaviorism, Marxism, and atheistic existentialism? But the answer to the question is

negative. Postmodernism, in an evident inconsistency, rejects some beliefs. It absolutely denies

the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man. That is to say it

denies a Christian, Judaic or Islamic God. There is also a more general reason for Christians to be

wary of postmodernism. Historically, the Christian intellectual tradition has, despite some

noteworthy exceptions, expressed confidence that the universe, under the guidance of a

supreme being, is intelligible. However, since the Renaissance, that confidence in the world’s
intelligibility has gradually eroded in Western intellectual history. Postmodernism, in its denial of

an absolute truth or of any ultimate intelligible structure to reality, continues that erosion.

Because of some similar characteristics of modernism and postmodernism, critics some

time become confuse to differentiate one from the other. It would be more helpful if we discuss

the characteristics of post-modernism in compare and contrast to modernism.

Like modernism, postmodernism also believes the view that there is no absolute truth

and truth is relative. Postmodernism asserts that truth is not mirrored in human understanding

of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality. So, facts

and falsehood are interchangeable. For example, in classical work such as King Oedipus there is

only one truth that is “obey your fate”. In contrast to classical work in postmodern work such as

in Waiting for Godot, there is no such thing as absolute truth. All things are relative here.

Whereas Modernism places faith in the ideas, values, beliefs, culture, and norms of the

West, Postmodernism rejects Western values and beliefs as only a small part of the human

experience and often rejects such ideas, beliefs, culture, and norms.

Whereas Modernism attempts to reveal profound truths of experience and life,

Postmodernism is suspicious of being "profound" because such ideas are based on one particular

Western value systems.

Whereas Modernism attempts to find depth and interior meaning beneath the surface of

objects and events, Postmodernism prefers to dwell on the exterior image and avoids drawing

conclusions or suggesting underlying meanings associated with the interior of objects and

events.
 Whereas Modernism focused on central themes and a united vision in a particular piece

of literature, Postmodernism sees human experience as unstable, internally contradictory,

ambiguous, inconclusive, indeterminate, unfinished, fragmented, discontinuous, "jagged," with

no one specific reality possible. Therefore, it focuses on a vision of a contradictory, fragmented,

ambiguous, indeterminate, unfinished, "jagged" world.

Whereas Modern authors guide and control the reader’s response to their work, the

Postmodern writer creates an "open" work in which the reader must supply his own

connections, work out alternative meanings, and provide his own (unguided) interpretation.