Did Jesus Christ have brothers and sisters in the flesh?

When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.

With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would anyone attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple as the word 'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess that the scripture is correct and Mary had other children, it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary. Therefore, a way had to be devised which would justify this teaching.

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine which is not based on solid scripture. Number two, Roman catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call "technicalities" in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Bible hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word, and then follows it to it's conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word which says or even implies that Mary had no other Children, that starting conclusion is based on man's thoughts, not God's.
What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word [adelphos], that is translated brethren, and attempted to make it's meaning vague and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple of meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ, Brethren/Kin), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we are dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this word in it's context could mean cousins. As for the spurious claim that it means brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the passages precludes it. Moreover, even without the word "brethren" we can see clearly that Mary had other children. To simply "ignore" these things would be handling the scriptures tortuously.

The best way to find an answer of what is true is to go right to the Scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scriptures (the Word of God) are the ultimate Authority. Note carefully that you would have to "tortuously" wrest the scriptures to even begin to make them imply Mary didn't have other children. for example...

    Matthew 13:55

• "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

    Matthew 27:56

• "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the "Mother" of James and Joses. This has nothing to do with the translation of the word "brother". And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55 that James and Joses were Jesus' brothers! And so unambiguously, on two separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker. But Roman tradition is not rational, it's indoctrination. Nevertheless, the clear sense of scripture (to those without any preconceived ideas) is made manifest in it's clarity.

    Mark 3:31

• "There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."

    Mark 6:3

• "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Again, the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It's identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we're going to say that word Brother doesn't really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn't really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it's the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.

    Mark 15:40

• "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;"

    Mark 16:1

• "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him."

Anyone looking at those scriptures both "carefully" and "honestly" can come to no other conclusion but that Mary had other children. The problem is not that the scriptures don't clearly state this, the problem is that the Roman Catholic church places tradition over and above the Authority of the Word of God, making it non effectual (mark 7:13). There is nothing in God's Word that either implicitly or explicitly says Jesus was the lone son of Mary, or that Mary remained a virgin. But the context of many verses show that their was physical sexual union between Joseph and Mary after Christ was born.

    Matthew 1:24-25

• "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him HIS WIFE:
• And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"

He 'Knew her' not (didn't have physical sexual union with her) until she had brought forth her Firstborn, Jesus. From this statement, it is clear that He knew her (in the biblical sense) AFTER the birth of Jesus. As a practical example, if someone were to say that they took a wife, but didn't consummate the marriage until after January, and in reply I stated that this means they never consummated the marriage, you would think that ridiculous. And you'd be right. But this is exactly what Roman catholics do in regards to the above verses of scripture.

And so, that anyone can read all these scriptures and still believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin is a testimony to the indoctrination of traditions. To believe this, they must ignore or wrest scriptures that say Mary was the Mother of Jesus' Brethren, ignore scriptures which say Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, and ignore scripture which says Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) her not "until" after the birth of the firstborn (Jesus). And that's just for starters!
The deeper question is not was Mary a perpetual virgin (no scripture says that), but why should/would she be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a deity! Is there anything wrong with Joseph and Mary having more children? It was a perfectly normal thing for a husband and a wife to do. In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians 7:3-5).

Another Biblical indication that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a myth is that Jesus is referred to as her firstborn Son. If Jesus was the only child of Mary, would He be referred to as her firstborn Son? Of course not, because this designation assumes the existence of more than one son. It designates more than one child, among whom a specific one is the first. Mary certainly had other children after the birth of Jesus. Not only does the Bible clearly tells us that, but it also gives us the very names of those children. From the very beginning God ordained that wife and husband should be fruitful and multiply. The only thing which would preclude this, is man-made traditions invoking the idolizing of Mary. Because God's Word is abundantly clear on the matter.

    Matthew 12:46

• "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him."

    John 2:12

• "After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His Mother, and His Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Lest anyone should try and wrest the Word and claim that this word brethren is talking about those in Christ (spiritual brethren), here we see God showing us the disciples (spiritual family) were distinct "from" his Brethren and Mother (Blood family). It was his Mother, his Brothers, "and" the Disciples. Again, the very context confirms these were Jesus Brethren, not the Church brethren. You don't say, "His Mother and His Brothers" in a context like this, and have it mean the Church.
    
   John 7:3-5

• "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
• For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
• For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Again, we can see clearly that at first even Jesus's brothers did not believe on Him. This again clearly illustrates that these were his flesh brothers, not brothers in the sense of brothers in Christ. The context makes that very plain. And the scriptures use the Greek word [suggenes] or [suggeneia] when referring to kinsman, relatives, or cousins, not [adelphos] Brethren. These brethren were Mary's other children. Note also that his brethren said this, that his Disciples may also see the works. Again, a distinction between His brothers and the brethren which were the family of the Church.
    Acts 1:14

• "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

    Galatians 1:19

• "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Clear scripture which illustrates to us that Mary had other children. Unfortunately, when one cannot justify their teachings with scripture, they must come up with some other way to justify tradition, and so rationalizing away scripture is usually the rule of the day. Their authority becomes men instead of God. But what is man's word worth compared to the Word of the living God? it is written, "let God be true and every man a Liar".

The fact is, you cannot argue anyone into believing anything. Either they are noble to receive what is written, or blinded by tradition that they won't receive it. The key is not to let their frustration become your frustration. Go into any discussion with the proponents of this doctrines with your eyes wide open. Don't expect people to listen to the Word of God, because they probably won't. Nevertheless, here and there there will be a remnant, a few who will hear, being called of God that they won't blindly follow man-made doctrines. The Spirit of truth will guide these to listen with all readiness of mind to rational consistent Biblical teachings. Just as the more noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) did. As these Bereans didn't blindly accept what their Priests said, so a few will search it out to see if what is witnessed is true.

    Acts 1:14

• "These all continued with one accord in Prayer and supplication, and with the women, and MARY the Mother of Jesus, and with HIS Brethren."

The truth is both clear and Concise. It's not ambiguous, nor is it hard to understand. But as Jesus said about His witness, "if you will receive it".

So what can the faithful Christian glean in information about the Lord's Brothers and Sisters from all of these pertinent passages? First of all, we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.

These things are so clear and so straight forward in the scriptures that it seems totally irrational to deny them. But with some groups, it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, because church leaders or teachers are paramount rather than the authority of the Word of God itself. We should understand (though not condone) that this is the way it has to be with them because that is the only way they can claim that the clear context and text, doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By not having the Word as ultimate authority, but church, they can make these claims in their private interpretation of scripture, and arbitrary defining of terms.

The normal process of hermeneutics does not allow us to force upon the scriptures the idea that Mary had no other Children, ever! Both the context of the sentences as well as the common usage of these words and structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His Mother, Sisters and Brethren. ...Not cousins, or brethren (as in Church members).

In all matters of doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same common denominator. What is our Authority? Is it God, where we receive and obey God's Word as the ultimate authority, or is it man, where we receive and obey our teachers words as the authority? Those who reject scripture in favor of their teachers (no matter what religion) have another authority other than that of the Bible. And as long as they do, they will never come to any agreement with any scripture unless their church leaders (man) says they can (or God decides to open their eyes). Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes.

The true believer doesn't need to build Mary up, she is already Blessed and honoured. Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel and was blessed of God to bear the Lord, but she must not be set up as a idol, or prayer tower, or intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not loose sight of that. There is one Mediator between God and man, and one redemptrix and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. And the idea of mary as a Co-redemptrix is anathema. We don't have to artificially make her Holy, she is Holy just like all the rest of God's Chosen vessels. ..by the Blood of Christ.

CONCLUSION: It is clearly said by John the Apostle that HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT (read John 1:11) Can you consider your own your cousins since they do not belong to your own family with similar parents same as yours? OF COURSE NOT! Since Mary and Joseph are believers of Christ, the only people we can point who dont received Christ as one of his own are his own brethen in the flesh.

In desperation, Catholic Defenders alibi that if he has brethen in the flesh, why did Christ asked St. John to take care of his mother instead of his brethen in the flesh?

First, Christ's brethen in the flesh is not present at Mt. Cavalry

Last, Christ has more trust to his own apostle than his brethen in the flesh because his brethen in the flesh DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIM (read John 7:5) I myself will agree that I will have more trust to a person with a similar belief as mine than to some of the members of my family who dont have similar beliefs same as mine.

read again my posts that clearly proves Lord Jesus Christ has brethen in the flesh

The myths of Islamic religion part 2

6) The Myth:

Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.  On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was acquiring new populations and culture through violent conquest.

The Truth:

Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was relatively more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion).  In fact, the religion tends to discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the most prolific Muslim scholars have always tended to be students of religion rather than science.

[Note that the country of Spain alone translates more learning material and literature into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century.  As the Saudi Grand Mufti bluntly put it in 2010, "The Quran with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us... we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book].

There are four basic reasons why Islam has little true claim to scientific achievement:

First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by Christians and Jews.  To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time and this became the foundation for their own knowledge.  (One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period).

Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims.  The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam when, in fact, it was a Hindu discovery that was merely introduced to the West by Muslims.

In truth, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude).  The Muslim concentration within a population is directly proportional to the decline of scientific achievement.  It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 800 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.

Third, even accomplished Muslim scientists and cultural icons were often considered heretics in their day, sometimes with good reason.  One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Persian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi.  His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment.  But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.

Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic.  There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir (and assassin, by the way), but not much else that survives in modern technology which is of practical significance.  Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.

As an example, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee, since the beans were discovered in Africa (at the time, an important venue for Islamic slave trading) and first processed in the Middle East.  While this is true, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America.  It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now (although, to be fair, coffee probably expedited subsequent discoveries).

In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement.  One often doesn't hear about the dismal fate of original accomplishments either.  Those who brag about the great observatory of Taqi al-Din in [freshly conquered] Istanbul, for example, often neglect to mention that it was quickly destroyed by the caliphate.

At the end of the day, the record of scientific, medical and technological accomplishment is not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a contest with the Christian world.  Today’s Islamic innovators are primarily known for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.

To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator.  The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam.  Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.

7) The Myth:

Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings.  The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.

The Truth:

There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Quran.  In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras.  Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.

The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery.  Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader.  After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes its findings as such:

    Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work.  The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. (Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life)

Even the very pulpit from which Muhammad preached Islam was built by slave labor on his command!

As such, this deeply dehumanizing horror has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam since the days of Muhammad to the current plight of non-Muslims in the Sudan, Mali, Niger and Mauritania, as well as other parts of the Muslim world.

There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement).  The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.

Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West.  The absence of a guilty Muslim conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam - when it is actually indicative of the explicit tolerance the religion has for the practice

So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, along with their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.

Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam.  Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery.  Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period in the 1500-1600's.  In India, 200,000 Hindus were captured and transported to Iranian slave markets in just a two year span (1619-1620) by one of the kinder Muslim rulers.

African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters.  Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery.  The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.

There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity.  When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself.  But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of divinely-sanctioned slavery, is the best that Islam can offer in the way of an abolitionist, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.

8) The Myth:

Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism.  It is against Islam to kill innocent people.

The Truth:

Islam does prohibit killing innocent people.  Unfortunately, you don't qualify.

Even though many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated.  This is why Muslims on both sides of the terror debate accuse the other of hijacking Islam while insisting that they are the true Muslims.  It is also why organizations that commit horrible atrocities in the name of Allah, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, receive a significant amount of moral and financial support from the mainstream.

In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an “innocent person” in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed.  The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law.

Consider that a great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who refuse to become Muslim.  How can Muslims say that the subjects of such divine wrath are innocent persons?

The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.”  These would specifically be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the  jizya (tribute to Muslims).  Yet, the word “dhimmi” comes from the Arabic root meaning “guilt” or "blame."  ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"].

So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?”

Even within the Islamic community there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater even than the average non-believer.  These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms.  A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only.  They are distinguished either by an unwillingness to wage holy war or by an intention to corrupt the community of believers (by befriending Christians or Jews, for example).

When Muslims frequently kill Muslims in the name of Allah, they usually do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers).  This is actually a part of Islamic Law known as takfir, in which Muslims are declared apostates and then executed.  (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine).

In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war.  Islamic terrorists rarely refer to themselves as terrorists, but usually as holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen).  They consider their acts to be a form of Jihad.

Holy war is something that Muhammad commanded in the Quran and Hadith.  In Sura 9:29, he establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation.  This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.

In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.”  There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Quran that exhort killing and fighting – far more than there are of peace and tolerance.  It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion in this "eternal discourse between God and Man" was of historical value only and not intended to be relevant to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text to distinguish them in such fashion.

Combine the Quranic exhortation to holy war with the ambiguity of innocence and a monumental problem develops that cannot be patched over with mere semantics.  Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam, but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence... and just whom the targets may be.

Even many Muslims who claim to be against terrorism still support the “insurgency” in Iraq, for example, and often entertain the allegation that there is a broader “war against Islam.”  Although American troops in Iraq are trying to protect innocent life and help the country rebuild, Muslims around the world and in the West believe that it is legitimate for Sunnis and Shias to try and kill them.

Enjoying the sanction of holy war, the Mujahid reasons that it is permissible to attack fellow Iraqis – the ones helping the Americans… even if they are part of a democratically-elected Iraqi government.  These non-combatants and combatants alike are believed to be the “Munafiqin” or "Takfir" assisting the enemy “Crusaders.”

Although we use Iraq as an example here, this is the same rationale that is ultimately behind all Islamic terror, from the Philippines to Thailand.  Wherever the religion of Islam is a minority, there are always radicals who believe that violence is justified in bringing it to dominance - just as Muhammad taught by example in places like Mecca and the land of al-Harith.

And what of the so-called “innocents” who suffer from the bombings and shootings?  Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable.  The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women, for example, also indicates that there were such casualties in his attacks on other tribes.

If there is any doubt that he believed that the forbidden is sometimes necessary, it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed.  He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men.

This is the slippery slope that is opened by the sanction of holy war.  What starts out as the perception of a noble cause of self-defense against a supposed threat gradually devolves into a "let Allah sort them out" campaign through a series of logical steps that are ultimately justified by the sublime goal of Islamic rule.

Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions.  It is to be the dominant religion with Sharia as the supreme law.  Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary.

Apologists in the West often shrug off the Quran's many verses of violence by saying that they are relevant only in a “time of war.”

To this, Islamic terrorists would agree.  They are at war.

9) The Myth:

Islam is compatible with democratic principles.  The religion itself is a democracy.

The Truth:

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender.  The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other.  The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.

Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights.  The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less.  Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim.  In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah.  A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political.  The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies.  There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful that are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the latter often complain that democracy is an idolatrous system imposed on them.

Islam does not facilitate democracy.

10) The Myth:

The Quran is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians (and the Torah to Jews).

The Truth:

The Quran only contains what is presented as the literal words of Allah - as relayed by Muhammad.  It can be compared to a manufactured text that includes only the words of Jesus (the so-called "red-letter" verses) extracted from their New Testament historical context and then randomly mixed together (the chapters of the Quran are arranged by size and themes are rarely consistent even within each chapter).

By contrast, the Bible contains history and biographical detail.  For example, there is nothing in the Quran that details Muhammad's life, whereas the Bible contains four books that present all that is known about the biography of Jesus.  Another distinction is that when the Bible commands violence - as it does in a handful of Old Testament verses - the intended target is explicitly defined within the passage, leaving little doubt that it is a recounting of history and not an open-ended command for anyone else to do the same.

Despite the rhapsody with which Muslims sing the Quran's praises, there is an obvious reason why only a minority have actually bothered to delve deeper than an occasional sporadic perusal through its pages.  The random arrangement of verses and near absence of context makes it difficult to understand.  For this reason the Quran is rarely printed without the incorporation of voluminous commentary (that usually expresses the personal preferences of the translator).

In fact, the Muslim counterpart to the Bible is the Quran, Hadith and Sira combined.

The Hadith is a collection of anecdotes and historical snippets of Muhammad's life based on the relayed narrations of those who lived with him. Unfortunately, authenticity varies.  But the most dependable compilers are agreed by Muslims scholars to be Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, followed by Abu Dawud. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

The Sira is the biography of Muhammad's life. Again, there are reliability issues which would appear somewhat bewildering to Christians, given that the gospels were well in place within the first few centuries following the crucifixion - which preceded Muslim history by over 600 years.  Still, the most reliable biography of Muhammad was compiled by Ibn Ishaq, who wrote about 150 years after his death.  His original work survives only in what was "edited" by a later translator (Ibn Hisham, who admitted that he filtered out several accounts that were of a distasteful nature).

A failure to recognize that the Bible is only comparable to the Quran, Hadith and Sira together often leads to faulty accusation and misplaced analysis.

The myths of Islamic religion

 
1) The Myth:

Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic.

The Truth:

An Arabic word only has one root.  The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.”  There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word. 

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission.  As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to  subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.  This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.

2) The Myth:  

The Quran places men and women on equal foundation before Allah.  Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds.  Women have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Truth:

Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation.

After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men.  In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands.  Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers.  There are four Quranic verses in which "Allah" makes clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape.

The Quran gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience, but nowhere does it command love in marriage.  It plainly says that husbands are “a degree above” wives.  The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.

Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at his choosing.  If he does this twice, then wishes to remarry her, she must first have sex with another man.  Men are exempt from such degradations.

Muslim women are not free to marry whom they please, as are Muslim men.  Their husband may also bring other wives (and slaves) into the marriage bed.  And she must be sexually available to him at any time (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam).

Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portion to males.  Their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s.  Unlike a man, she must cover her head - and often her face.

If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then there must be four male witnesses to corroborate her account.  Otherwise she can be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.”

Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons.  This is an entirely new ploy that is designed for modern tastes and disagrees sharply with the reality of Islamic law and history.

 3) The Myth:  

Islam’s Western apologists sometimes claim that since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means “fight” or “struggle,” it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war.

The Truth:  

In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle.  In Islam, it means holy war.

The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle.  It is also unclear why Muhammad and his Quran would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of character development.

With this in mind, Muslim apologists generally admit that there are two meanings to the word, but insist that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.”  In fact, this misconception is based only on an a single hadith that Islamic scholars generally agreed was fabricated.

By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith collections is that of Bukhari.  Jihad is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one carries a clear connotation to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions (dealing with a woman's supporting role during a time of holy war).

4) The Myth:  

Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same.  Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense - and when it was necessary.  True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them.  The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way.  Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim.  Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.

The prophet of Islam's most faithful followers and even his own family soon turned on each other as well.  There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his.  Three of these four were murdered.  The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph.  The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was brought to an end in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle (who was not even a Muslim).

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad.  Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals.  Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis.  His people became Shias.  The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima's followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience.  Muhammad explicitly held up both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death.  Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus).  For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa.  Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans.  The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).  To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam.  The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently.  They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.  In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the "hypocrites" (Muslims who don't act like Muslims).  In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory).  The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message.  While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists.  By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.  In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then...

5) The Myth:  

Religious minorities have flourished under Islam.  Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion.  To me, mine."

The Truth:

Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam.  In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination.  Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.

What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination.  The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims.  They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.

Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation.  They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya).  They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements.

For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks.

It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries.  Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism.

For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority.  The Quran tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.”  The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam).

Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years.  Islamists in Somalia behead Christians.  In Iran, they are jailed.

One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self-defense were the shoe on the other foot.  Islam is its own justification.  Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard.

There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief.  There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims.  At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others.  By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam.  In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109.

If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not.  But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun.

Prophet Mohammad's way of life

 If Islam's image means more to you than the suffering of the thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed explicitly in the name of Allah each year, then it means that you are definitely a Muslim (or at least a well-known type of Muslim) and this page is for you.

As a Muslim, you know that life is full of tough choices.  Do you behead or not behead?  Have adult relations with your buddy's 9-year-old child...?  Take a female sex slave... ?

For followers of the Religion of Peace, it all comes down to knowing what Muhammad did when faced with the same decisions (based on reliable Muslim sources, of course).  In fact, the more you know about the founder of Islam the better, even if you aren't Muslim.

Forget all those shifty apologists, trying to make Muhammad out to be some sort of "Jesus clone" based on a few obscure anecdotes.  The prophet of Islam definitely wasn't one to turn the other cheek or keep his worldly appetites in check.

You want the truth?  Think you can handle it?  Well, here you are then...

What Would Muhammad Do? (Click the links below)

1) Have sex with a 9 year old girl

2) Advocate Beheading

3) Require women to cover their faces

4) Do not befriend Jews and Christians

5) Own slaves

6) Marry his daughter in law

7) Approve of prostitution

8) Gluttonize - Source is from Ibn Ishaq

9) Recommend wife beating

10) Hit his own wife

11) Kill prisoners of war

12) Advocate suicide attacks

13) Kill apostates

14) Tell sick persons to heal themselves by drinking camel urine 

15) Beat children who dont pray

16) Have boys as young as 13 yrs. old beheaded

17) Have eleven wives at one time

18) Approve of sex with minors

19) To lie

20) Enslave women and children - Sources are from Hadith and Ibn Ishaq

21) Stone adulterers to death

22) Torture a man out of greed

23) Dont consider men and women as equal partners 

24) To steal

25) Kill someone for insulting him

26) Dont preach love for people of all religions

27) Keep women as sex slaves

28) Force conversions to Islam

29) Committed acts of terror

30) Kill a woman

31) Capture a woman and rape her

32) Encourage the rape of women infront of their husbands 

Oh, and don't forget that according to Allah himself (speaking through Muhammad, of course) Muhammad is the most "beautiful pattern of conduct" and "example" for mankind to follow! (Qur'an 33:21), as well as the "exalted standard of character" (Qur'an 68:4).

Shameless Philippine Catholic bishops

 Let us see the continuance of Catholic's influence here in the Philippines. Not only priests does have "CONTROVERSIES" that are now being exposed in diff. parts of the world , but also "BISHOPS" and "ARCHBISHOPS"!

Conclusion: They are SHAMELESS!

Here is the news that a bishop wrote a letter asking for a BRAND NEW CAR to the former President of the Philippines:

Lawyer Aleta Tolentino, a PCSO director, provided the Inquirer with a copy of the February 2009 letter of Butuan Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos to Arroyo, which was coursed through then PCSO director Maria Fatima Valdez.

Attached to the letter was a March 9, 2009, memorandum transmittal from “The President” to “The Chairman” of the PCSO, with the note “for appropriate action, please.”
“This document (Pueblos’ letter) really shocked us. It pains us to divulge it but this will be included in the investigation,” she said.

Bishop’s letter

Pueblos’ letter to Arroyo reads:

“I will be celebrating my 66th birthday on March 8, 2009. I know this will be a precious day and timely occasion to thank the Lord for giving me another year … After a prayerful discernment and due considerations to the existing crisis phenomenon today, I have decided not to hold a birthday party. Instead, I prefer to make use of my birthday as a day with and for myself, and with God.

“Having (been) declared, awarded and honored from your good office as ‘Peace Champion of Caraga,’ I am grateful to God that He has made me an instrument of His peace, especially here in Mindanao. I know I can do more to promote and work for peace.
“It is in this view that I am asking a favor from your Excellency. At present, I really need a brand-new car, possibly a 4 x 4, which I can use to reach the far-flung areas of Caraga. I hope you will never fail to give a brand new car which would serve as your birthday gift to me. For your information, I have with me a 7-year-old car which is not anymore in good running condition. Therefore, this needs to be replaced very soon.
Pueblos’ call for Aquino to quit

“I am anticipating your favorable response on this regard. Thank you very much. Be assured of my constant support and sincerest prayers to your Excellency.”
Last month, Pueblos called on President Aquino to resign over alleged irregularities committed by his party mates, classmates and shooting buddies.
Pueblos’ diocese was one of the six Catholic dioceses and one organization that received sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and cash donations amounting to P8.3 million from the PCSO during the Arroyo administration.
Besides the Diocese of Butuan, the recipients of the illegal donations for the purchase of 4 x 4 vehicles were the Zamboanga Archdiocesan Social Action Apostolate, Archdiocese of Cotabato, Diocese of Bangued (Abra), Prelature of Isabela (Basilan) and Apostolic Vicariate of Bontoc and Caritas Nueva Segovia, which covers Ilocos Sur, received financial assistance.

Using name of poor

Tolentino wondered whether the vehicle Pueblos had requested was for the poor. “This (letter) is a camouflage of using the name of the poor for self-interest,” she said.
source: newsinfo.inquirer.net

I almost laugh about this, see the letter of the bishop, in the 1st and second paragraph he pretended to be humble but then his true colors showed off in the 3rd paragraph, the first two was just an "ACTING" so the President would approve his favor (inshort, PAAWA EPEK!^^)
I agree to Att. Tolentino when she said:

“This (letter) is a camouflage of using the name of the poor for self-interest,”

Ive got this comment pertaining to the video above and i am 100% agree!

WTF!! These bishops are calling for civil disobedience and telling people not to pay taxes to Phil. govt? It should be the other way around. People must go out in the street and condemn these Bishops for their bad immoral activities. They even collect jueteng money. They don't even pay taxes yet the accept donations from the government. Church should focus on their role in this society - moral and spiritual guidance! Or simply abolish CBCP! They're bunch of immoral religious leaders!

jeansforjustice 1 week ago

Another is what Edcel Lagman, i am also 100% agree he said:

HOUSE Minority Leader Edcel Lagman yesterday described as morally offensive the acceptance of some Catholic Bishops of vehicles or cash gifts from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

Lagman said the Catholic Church has enough resources to fund its own charitable institutions or foundations.

“The Catholic Church is way too rich to be a charity case and has more than sufficient resources to finance its charitable work without competing with countless indigent patients and legitimate charity beneficiaries,” Lagman said.

source: journal.com

And their solution for this very big controversy is.... (GUESS WHAT?)

MANILA, Philippines - Catholic bishops who received money from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to buy sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are willing to return the cars to the government, a church-run news agency said Thursday.

Butuan Bishop Juan De Dios Pueblos, who bought a P1.629-million Mitsubishi Montero from money given by the PCSO in 2009, is among the prelates willing to hand over the SUVs, according to CBCP News.

Pueblos, who is perceived to be close to then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, had personally asked for a new vehicle from the Palace as a "birthday gift."
"I don't see any problem. I am riding a very old vehicle within the diocese itself. I could even ride yung mga small vehicle if it is necessary. It will not really be a problem," he said in an interview with Church-run Radyo Veritas.

He added that he is willing to face an ongoing Senate investigation into the alleged misuse of funds in the state lottery agency during the Arroyo administration.
He also accused the present administration of going after critics.

"Yes, I would even like to make a privilege speech in Senate," he said. "It's a character assassination what they did to me and because of this I have also in sort of to defend myself."

Another Church official, Basilan Bishop Martin Jumoad, said he is willing to return a P1.225-million worth Mitsubishi Estrada his diocese bought using PCSO funds in 2009.
"If they want to get it, it's ready. We can return it to them," Jumoad said, as quoted by CBCP News.

Bishops Deogracias Iñiguez of Calookan and Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon said handing over the vehicles to the PCSO may finally end the controversy.
"Just return the vehicles to put an end to this issue. Not doing so will only fuel speculations," Iñiguez said.

"Return all these vehicles to PNoy (President Aquino). They’ll make it appear that the bishops personally used those vehicles when the bishops didn't," Bastes said.
Archbishops Orlando Quevedo of Cotabato, Romulo Valles of Zamboanga, Ernesto Salgado ofNueva Segovia, Bishops Rodolfo Beltran of Bontoc-Lagawe, and Leopoldo Jaucian of Abra have yet to say if they will return their PCSO-funded vehicles.
source: abscbnnews.com

This is their solution, to "give back" luxury vehicles so that it would not appear that they are indeed greedy and that they use it for the "poor(?)". What else are their tactics? (Any guess?)

While citing Article 6, Section 29 (2) of the constitution that bars government from giving public funds to support a specific religious sect or group, Bernas said ruling on previous legal cases depend on the purpose and uses of the government "gift."

He mentioned the case of Aglipay vs. Ruiz on use of government funds for the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic Church, as well as the expropriation of the birthplace of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia ni Kristo, for the purpose of preserving it as a historical landmark.

         source: abscbnnews.com

To INVOLVE some that is not connected with the issue, so that they can be "resolved" in the eyes of the public! That is from a bias, Fr. Joaquin Bernas. Its funny to see how these priests and bishops helping each other to cover the truth, like Catholic defenders are doing, so now i believe the saying "By their fruits you will know them", because it is same as what the corrupt catholic officials are doing, they all do the same as what their Church did!

And their last step?

Philippine bishops yesterday apologized for their role in the fund controversy at the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), where donations of luxury cars have put Catholic leaders on the spot.

Their pastoral letter “A Time of Pain, a Time of Grace” was read at the close of a national plenary assembly in Manila of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).
“We assure you that the bishops concerned are ready to accept responsibility for their action and to face the consequences if it would be proven unlawful, anomalous and unconstitutional,” said Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar, CBCP president.

The bishops asked their followers to be “slow in judgment” and to “seek the truth always in charity.”

“Our Mother Church has been deeply wounded by the controversies in the [PCSO] that have erupted in the past two weeks … As shepherds struggling to love you like Jesus the Good Shepherd, we are sorry for the pain and sadness that these events have brought upon you,” said Odchimar.

The PCSO alleged that the vehicles were used by the past administration for political patronage at the time when calls for resignation had been hounding former President Gloria Arroyo.

Seven bishops were earlier identified as receiving donations of sports utility vehicles (SUV) from the state-owned lottery. Six are expected to attend a Senate hearing about PCSO funds tomorrow.

No mention was made in the pastoral statement about returning the brand-new vehicles, which cost at least P1 million each.

source: newsinfo.inquirer.net

Yes, 7 bishops received money from PCSO funds to buy luxury cars, here it is:

• Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos- P 1.704 million

• Archbishop Romulo Valles- P1.54 million

• Quevedo- P1.44 million

• Jaucian- P1.129 million

• Bishop Martin Jumoad- P1.125 million

• Bishop Rodolfo Beltran- P600,000

• Archbishop Ernesto Antolin Salgado- P720,000

Saying sorry and saying "they are ready to take responsibility on their action" means they are indeed GUILTY! They even use the name of Jesus(their God) in this controversy

"...As shepherds struggling to love you like Jesus the Good Shepherd, we are sorry for the pain and sadness that these events have brought upon you,” said Odchimar."

This is a sin plus sin, why?
They violate their 3rd commandment!

• Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

Tsk. Tsk. Well, this is how Catholics plays the game, they are not contented on using the "poor" in their reason but then they even use Jesus' name (their God), WHAT THE???

FACTS:

• Catholic Church does receive money from gamblings legal or illegal, every now and then. Even nowadays, they are adviced not to.

• They accept money from the government for the activities of CHURCH.

• They involve some for the controversy's sake.

• They are too rich for them to ask for funds in the government for their CHARITIES. and lastly,

They are all SHAMELESS! After they condemned the government on different issues, they are the one's who are benefiting of government's money or should i say, FILIPINO'S

The Trial of the Catholic Church: A Tale of Moral and Financial Bankruptcy

  

Babylon has fallen mentioned in Revelation 18 is being depicted in this  photo 

 

The Trial of the Catholic Church: A Tale of Moral and Financial Bankruptcy

 

By Liam Fox
NEWS JUNKIE POST
Mar 22, 2010 at 4:22 pm

The potential financial bankruptcy of the Catholic Church is rivaled only by the apparent moral bankruptcy reaching from parish priests all the way to the Papal offices of the Vatican. Tens of thousands of cases have emerged in dozens of countries from Asia to Europe and from Australia to the Americas. No country seems immune, and the vulnerability of the victims seems only contingent on the number of clergy.

Over the past week, stories have surfaced of sexual abuse that was actively hidden and aided by the current Pope while he was archbishop of Germany. Joseph Ratzinger, archbishop of Munich and Freising, now Pope Benedict XVI , ignored repeated warnings regarding a priest accused of sexually abusing boys. While Ratzinger was in charge, the accused priest, Peter Hullerman, was briefly transferred to Munich for therapy.
Dr. Werner Huth, a psychiatrist from Munich, told the New York Times; “I said, For God’s sake, he [Hullerman] desperately has to be kept away from working with children… I was very unhappy about the entire story.” His warnings, which he states were repeated to Benedict’s senior aids, went unheeded(1). Soon after, he was allowed to return to parish work and interact with children. In 1986, Hullermann was finally convicted of sexual abuse yet was still allowed to continued working with altar boys. He was finally suspended, just this month.

As in Boston, where Cardinal Bernard Law was caught actively lying about what he knew, and what he did to cover up the abuse, the Catholic Church is rallying in protection of the Pope, directing attention instead on underlings, and treating the institutionalized pedophilia as isolated and unfortunate incidents(2). Pope Benedict XVI has admitted that the Church has been “severely shaken” by repeated allegations of high-level cover-ups of sexual abuse(3) ,but his recent letter of apology to Irish victims, released March 20, 2010, was poorly received and deemed inadequate(4). The letter promises an internal Vatican investigation and a year of penitence.

Catholic priests' mistresses letter calling an end to celibacy

A Catholic priest's lover in this photo

    
       This is a reprint of an article from guardian.co.uk

The Catholic celibacy conundrum

A letter written by mistresses of Catholic priests calls for an end to the discipline of celibacy. But could the church afford it?

o John Hooper
o guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 June 2010 12.00 BST
o Article history

The open letter sent to the pope by a group of Italian women who have been or are in relationships with Roman Catholic priests has cast a new light on the rule of priestly celibacy in his church at a time when its abolition was already under discussion as a possible response to the crisis over clerical sex abuse.

One aim of the letter was to make the point that the rule against marriage in the western Catholic church is not a dogma but a discipline.

In one of its most intriguing passages, the authors claim that “the reasons which prompted the ecclesiastical hierarchy, in its day, to insert this discipline into its legal system are well known – economic convenience and self-interest.”

Those alleged reasons are, in fact, far from well-known outside church circles, though they were alluded to last month in the Guardian’s Face to faith column by the dean of Southwark, Colin Slee: it costs a great deal less to pay for single priests than for priests with wives and perhaps children.

In the case of the Catholic church, moreover, there are additional, complicating factors. One is its increasingly queasy financial position. It has been calculated that, in the US, Roman Catholic dioceses have been ordered to pay out a total of more than $2.6bn in abuse-related costs. Now, the church faces another wave of claims in Europe, and especially in the German-speaking world. This is thought (the church’s finances are supremely opaque) to be one of its main sources of income, and known to be an area in which large numbers of Catholics are abandoning their faith in disgust. That too has direct financial consequences because in those countries membership of a denomination is a formal matter, registered with the state, which decides whether a proportion of a worshipper’s taxes go to his or her church.

Another factor is more ironic – the likely effect, were the Vatican to lift the ban on married priests, of its teaching on birth control. It is one thing for the leadership of the Church of England, say, to have to pay for a vicar with a wife and perhaps two or three children. It is quite another when the minister in question has a wife and five or six children.

Would married Roman Catholic priests have so many offspring? If they didn’t, I rather suspect their bishops would be keen to know why not.