UN says access to contraception a human right

http://news.yahoo.com/un-says-access-contraception-human-122456723.html

Associated Press – Wed, Nov 14, 2012

GENEVA (AP) — The United Nations says access to contraception is a universal human right that could dramatically improve the lives of women and children in poor countries.

It is the first time the U.N. Population Fund's annual report explicitly describes family planning as a human right.

It effectively declares that legal, cultural and financial barriers to accessing contraception and other family planning measures are an infringement of women's rights.

The report released Wednesday isn't binding and has no legal effect on national laws.

The global body also says increasing funding for family planning by a further $4.1 billion could save $11.3 billion annually in health bills for mothers and newborns in poor countries.

The U.N. doesn't count abortion among the measures.

Eating Dinuguan (Refuting that it is not a sin to eat it)

Dinuguan (in Visayan, also called dinardaraan in Ilocano, tid-tad in Pampanga, sinugaok in Batangas, rugodugo in Waray, and sampayna or champayna in Northern Mindanao) is a Filipino savory stew of meat and/or offal (typically lungs, kidneys, intestines, ears, heart and snout) simmered in a rich, spicy dark gravy of pig blood, garlic, chili (most often siling mahaba), and vinegar. The term dinuguan comes from the Filipino word dugo meaning "blood". Possible English translations include pork blood stew or blood pudding stew. It is also sometimes jokingly called chocolate meat.

Catholics disagree to their non Catholic brethen like members of INC of Manalo, ADD of Soriano and the SDA members saying that it is ungodly to eat dinuguan because it was prohibited in the Bible.

In fact, in the Christian era if you'll read the New Testament, eating of blood was prohibited by the law of Jesus Christ:

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It means that the Jewish religion's prohibition of not eating blood together with the meat is still a commandment to Christians:

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 12:24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

Now let's refute the Catholics' stand that it is not ungodly and unBiblical to eat dinuguan:

1) They use 1 Corinthians 10:25 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"

THE ANSWER: That is right because Lord Jesus said this, in Mark 7:19 "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? "

And also by Apostle Paul in Romans 14:20 "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence."

The reason is:

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

It is clearly stated in the Christian doctrine in the Bible that eating the blood is prohibited:

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It means that the Jewish religion's prohibition of not eating blood together with the meat is still a commandment to Christians:

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 12:24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

2) They use Leviticus 10:18 "Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded."

THE ANSWER: Do they mean that God contradictiong himself? He was the one who said not to eat the blood together with the flesh in Deuteronomy 12:13-24.

God is not the God of confusion so he is not confused on what He is commanding during the time of Moses:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Now, according to Leviticus 10:18, What was the real one that that should have eaten? Is it the blood or the meat?

Leviticus 10:12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

What is that meat?

Leviticus 10:14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.

God himself commanded to the children of Israel not to eat the fats or the blood:

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Eating blood during the time of Moses will give you this punishment:

Leviticus 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. 

Now let's answer, What was God's commandment of what to do about the blood if it was prohibited even to his priests during the time of Moses not to eat it?

Leviticus 3:12 And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD.  

Leviticus 3:13 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. 

Leviticus 4:30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

Leviticus 9:12 And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.


Now what was God's reason why He forbids his servants to eat the blood?

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

See the blood was being used for the atonement for the soul. This is the reason why after the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar, the priest shall make an atonement for the who sinned, and God will forgive him.

Leviticus 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

In the Christian Era (today), the blood of Lord Jesus Christ will cleanse the Christians' sins:

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

3) Third alibi of the Catholics is it is because they drink the blood of Christ.

ANSWER: The blood of Christ when the Christians drank it literally is in the cup and it was from the fruit of the vine and not the blood of an animal that is in the cup.

In fact, since Lord Jesus is not today with us literally, Christians can drink that cup spiritually by means of accepting persecutions.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Lord Jesus asked his Father to let this cup pass from Him by means of escaping the impending arrest of the Jews and put him in death by crucifying Him on the cross.

He in fact drank it spiritually by means of accepting that he should be arrested and then persecuted by his enemies and soon to be killed.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Evangelist Eliseo Soriano is not a fugitive at his home country and on Interpol

Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Y. Manalo is Unipersonal Corporation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
OFFICE OF THE DIVISION OF ARCHIVES PATENTED PROPERTIES
OF LITERATURE AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL TRADE MARKS

FELIX MANALO
Applicant

About
UNIPERSONAL CORPORATION OR THE SOCIETY CALLED
“IGLESIA NI KRISTO”

That said applicant appears before this office and respectfully declares:
THAT SAID APPLICANT IS THE FOUNDER AND PRESENT HEAD OF THE SOCIETY NAMED “IGLESIA NI KRISTO” and desires to convert said society into a unipersonal corporation.
That the rules and regulations of the said society prohibits not, nor opposes to the conversion of said society into a unipersonal corporation.
That in case of any vacancy that may happen among the directors and administrative positions, such as Pastor, Bishop, Evangelist, Secretary, Treasurer, Diacono, and Diaconess; the same will be filled or replaced in conformity with the precepts of the Holy Bible.
That the central office of the said Society is established and is located in sitio Punta, Sta. Ana under the jurisdiction of the City of Manila, Philippine Islands.
That as head of said society, he takes charge and is the administrator of all the properties and states of said society
For all the above mentioned, the undersigned requests from this office the registration of the said society as Unipersonal Corporation, and that he will pay all the corresponding fees and charges they may incur, in accordance with Art.154 of the P.I. Law 1459, still in effect.

Respectfully
(Sgd) FELIX MANALO

Registered No. 54
Folio No. 49

Vatican document confirms there is Vicarivs Filii Dei

The title appears in volume 99, page 21, in the entry for VICARIO DI GESU' CRISTO [Vicar of Jesus Christ], where it states very briefly that the

inscription VICARIUS FILII DEIis to be found in the VATICAN.

— Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni (Dictionary of Historical-Ecclesiastical Erudition from St. Peter to the Present), Gaetano Moroni

Nobel Prize winner contradicts CBCP

Editor's Note: The CBCP reacted to this story on August 6, Monday, and published a piece on its CBCP for Life website. The piece is entitled, "Akerlof contradicted what?"

(UPDATED) MANILA, Philippines - Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof contradicted the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines' (CBCP) use of his research in a public statement opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

In the "Science Facts on the RH Bills in Plain Language" article on the CBCP for Life website, the CBCP states "Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, more extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, according to the studies of Nobel laureate, George Akerlof."

In a written response, Akerlof said, "In my opinion, giving women, whether single or married, the right to choose can only increase the dignity of marriage and its sanctity."
Akerlof's research concluded that America's legalized abortion, as well as modern contraceptive technology, changed the American socio-sexual paradigm, as out-of-wedlock childbearing was now perceived as a woman's choice, which relieved men of any social obligation to marry the women or support their children.

The research, conducted within an American cultural framework, is not generalizable to the culture of the Philippines, where abortion is still illegal and single mothers are common.

Akerlof had not previously known that his research, which was on American out-of-wedlock childbearing, was cited in the Philippines by opponents of the RH Bill.

CBCP reaction

Reacting to comments by Akerlof that his research was taken out of context in the CBCP for Life website, the CBCP denied claiming that Akerlof was against the RH bill.
In an article entitled, “Akerlof contradicted what?” posted on its website on August 6, the CBCP said a “cross-cultural study that could be done here using his framework” has rich prospects which could go to waste. And yet, the pro-RH lobby does not mind citing numerous foreign studies, it pointed out.
Furthermore, “In the US, the societal effects of reproductive technology shock are clear, as Akerlof himself had found. Yet, Akerlof – throwing out his reference to cultural differences – turns his back and thinks it’s good for the Philippines, because ‘contraceptives and abortion…make family life richer and more rewarding,’” the CBCP said.
"Does Akerlof, who says he’s for the RH bill, mean it’s okay to have reproductive technology shock in the Philippines?" the CBCP asked.
The rest of the CBCP piece can be accessed here.

Support for the RH bill

When asked about his stance on the RH bill, Akerlof wrote: "I support fully, and without qualification, the bill in the Philippines to promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal."

"Contraceptives and abortion, in my opinion, make family life richer and more rewarding because they reduce the number of unwanted children, which is bad for the family, and also bad for the children as well," he added.

Akerlof is the Koshland Professor of Economics at the University of California-Berkeley, and a 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Akerlof was moved to comment on the issue after being contacted for comment by a freelance journalist who noticed the CBCP's citation of his research on their website. - Rappler.com

Refuting Glories and Virtues of Mary article

[[  "At the command of Mary, everybody obeys, even God." Saint Bernardine of Siena is not afraid to utter this sentence, meaning thereby, of course, that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands. And so Saint Anselm addresses her, saying: "Our Lord, O holy Mary, has exalted you to such an extent that by his favor all things that are possible to him should be possible to you!" "For your protection is omnipotent, O Mary," says Cosmas of Jerusalem. Yes, Mary is omnipotent, remarks Richard of Saint Lawrence, for by every law the queen enjoys the same privileges as the king. ]]

MY REPLY: There is no queen in heaven. A dead righteous Christian should be resurrected first by Lord Jesus Christ in order to reach heaven in the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


[[ And since the power of a son and that of a mother are the same, a mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent son. "And thus," says Saint Antoninus, "God has placed the whole Church not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary." ]]

MY REPLY: Mary has no same power as of the Lord Jesus Christ. She is no a God. the Bible says that she is the servant of the Lord.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;




[[ Since the mother, then, should have the same power as the son, Jesus, who is omnipotent, has also made Mary omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that, while Jesus is omnipotent by nature, Mary is omnipotent only by grace. But that she is so appears from the fact that, whatever the mother asks for, the son never denies her. ]]

MY REPLY: Really? if that is true, what Jesus Christ should do is according to what Mother Mary wishes and NOT WHAT LORD JESUS WANTS.

John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
John 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
John 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
John 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.


[[ This was revealed to Saint Bridget. One day she heard Jesus talking to Mary and saying: "Ask me for whatever you wish, for whatever you desire will not be denied you." As if he had said: "My Mother, you know how much I love you, so you may ask me for anything you wish. It is not possible for me to refuse you." And he gave this beautiful reason: "Because you never denied me anything on earth, I will not deny you anything in heaven." Mary, then, is called omnipotent in the sense in which such a term can be applied to a creature who is incapable of a divine attribute; that is, she is omnipotent because she obtains by her prayers whatever she wishes. ]]

MY REPLY: Mary is not yet with Jesus Christ in heaven.

A dead righteous Christian should be resurrected first by Lord Jesus Christ in order to reach heaven in the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.Besides, no man yet received the promise.

Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

That promise is the eternal life:

1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. What Saint Bridget revealed is surely a mere lies. possibly a vision from the devil.

No wonder, the devil can disguise even to an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

A devil can even make wonders like this
2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,