ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (Part 3 OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION)



And here's the Part 3 of the Episode titled OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION. Let's check out what we could get on this misunderstood statement by Ginoong Pantas and let analyze how he poorly take statement out of context. Okay so same as the previous post, text in blue from Ginoong Pantas and Gray from his quotes on my previous content, and maybe some others for emphasis if available. Let's dive in -

“𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙄’𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚, 𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚. 𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚, 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Let me emphasize your sublime utterance: “it’s true, I wasn’t certain.” So how can your rebuttal carry any weight when there are obvious UNCERTAINTIES in your points, especially in trying to support your claim that the involvement of the 1833 Leonid Meteor Storm is supposedly an “INC doctrine” tied to the emergence of the Church in the Philippines? On that basis alone, your argument is already shaky. Furthermore, your hasty generalizations and anecdotal fallacies do not constitute valid points to justify your misrepresentation of the true teachings of the INC regarding the emergence of the true Church of Christ. Honestly, you had ample time to conduct proper research and confirm your claims before posting your so-called FUN FACT, yet only now are you scrambling to find sources to back up your distorted view of our doctrines and teachings.

Seriously? Do you intend to understand my post as if I was quoting your doctrine, Ginoong Pantas? Do you read it that way, Ginoong Pantas? I don't even bother thinking on quoting any of your Pasugo Documents since it was all about bragging and attack of Catholicism, then here you are thinking I was doing that post as if it was attacking your ideology which I don't even care? Come on, Ginoong Pantas. You're no longer a child. The only doctrine that I'm pointing out is simply the claim of Felix Manalo of Biblical Prophecy that was fulfilled which again, I don't even care. So how do you think that my claim is shaky when it was not all about a direct INC claim rather a general event or historicity? So far, I haven't even caught on Hasty Generalization, it is simply that your are overreacting on my statement and that is the case here. You should define it first before addressing to someone who doesn't even have an issue.

“𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣 𝘼𝙛𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙂𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙘 𝙤𝙣 𝙁𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙤𝙡. 𝙄 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙁𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩. 𝘼𝙣𝙮𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨, 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙄 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩, 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙪𝙥𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, come on… it is nothing new to me that Facebook groups or pages exist which feature certain teachings professed by the INC. Many of these are drawn from official INC sources such as the Pasugo magazine, while others are modified articles from original authors to avoid copyright issues.

Yeah, right it's nothing new to everyone, then why don't you just go ahead and defend that this groups that they were wrong. Can you? Or what about lets just go to your official INC Website take actions on this one. Again, even if this has been modified by your cohorts or taken from somewhere else, this doesn't prove the fact of my point and you simply missed that part. Tell me Ginoong Pantas, was it because you don't like the way I posted it since it was all about Felix Manalo and his so-called prophecy? Again, my point is simple and if you deny it as if you exclude that on the list of Manalo Prophecy, who cares and that's not my point. I have given you my stand on this one already, you can go ahead and check out the Part 1 where I made my stand (Click here).

Well, I will admit that some of the articles of faith found on these unofficial INC sites (like the ones you have shown) can still be instructive. However, it is far better NOT to misinterpret or misrepresent the doctrines of the INC that you encounter on these pages, especially when there is NO indication that they are drawn from our official teachings on a given topic.

And here we are again. Now you do agree that this has been used over time, and you do now agree that even in your INC circles take this interpretations on different level. So, what's you point of bubbling on this senseless post you got here while you do agree that it is part of those prophesy, and when I say prophesy it's an specific event. And regarding misrepresentations and misinterpretations, its your problem. I did not interpret your ideology, I simply made a simple post that an event occurs, then here you are acting like a child cries on someone steals his lollypop. LOL! Seriously bro, why are you doing this? Just curious.

You see, even if you were to message those pages one by one, you would receive the same answer: THEY ARE NOT official sources of INC doctrine. Instead, they would refer you to incmedia.org, pasugo.com.ph, or iglesianicristo.net. Unless, of course, the page is run by a rebellious former member, in which case the INC‑oriented content might easily mislead you into believing things that are not truly taught by the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Again, I am not referring to any official doctrine of your INC, I simply says that this prophecy was fulfil and that your Manalo Dude has a lot of collected prophecy and one of those was this event, period. Would that make sense now, or you just can't comprehend a simple statement? So why would I use your doctrine on your official site where I don't even care those doctrine of your MANALO's Collection of Prophecy that doesn't even make sense?

Therefore, it is no longer our fault if you fail to exercise caution in choosing your sources when the subject at hand is the official doctrines or teachings of the INC.

Why would I feel sorry about it Ginoong Pantas? Why would I care choosing to go directly to the sources of your religion where it doesn't even relevant on my OP? This subject is actually simple and you are just trying so hard to defend your position were there's nothing even to discuss? Again, your misinterpretation on my statement says it all and that's your problem, not mine.

“𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤'𝙨 𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙄 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: In fact, there were plenty of such articles. But take note: NONE OF THEM ever suggest that the “falling of the stars” prophesied in Revelation 6:12-13 (fulfilled in the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower) is connected to the supposed signs of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines. Keep that firmly in mind, my friend, because I will not repeat it again.

Oh, come one, here we go again! So you disagree now and then agrees later on? I do keep it firmly in mind that you're simply a bigot. See where it lead you? NOWHERE! You just kept on jumping left and right and yet at later end you want to prove that this was not included in your PASUGO issues. Felix is even quoting it remember? And for sure we will get to that on the next episode. But here's the thing, you're missing the whole point of my statement, and you just hate it just because I posted it. Come on, go ahead and tell everyone about it Ginoong Pantas.

No comments: