From “5 Low Cost Ways to put your Church Service Online” by Christian Computing Magazine:
“These days churches need to be online. If your church has a website or a Facebook page, you’ve taken the first important step towards connecting with people in today’s culture. But what’s the next step?
“A lot of people attend church remotely – that is, they still want to participate in the church service, but for numerous reasons are not able to physically be at church. What if there was a way for your church to have the sermon, or even the entire worship service, available online for viewing?
“There are actually several options out there for putting your church services online – and some of them are even free. Here are five of Christian Media Magazine’s favorite tools getting church service videos out on the internet:”
Read the complete article.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
From “5 Low Cost Ways to put your Church Service Online” by Christian Computing Magazine:
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Venue: Pines City Baptist Church, No. 1 Malvar St., Trancoville, Baguio City; Phone: (074) 442-2862; Smart:0998-254-0868; Globe: 0915-221-0238; email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Registration fee: Php 150.00
Conference Committee Chairman: Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco
Keynote speaker: Dr. Ron White, 33 years as a missionary to Japan
Schedule of activities:
February 23, Monday
Registration 1-2 PM
Seminar 1: 2-3 PM "What Does It Take to Be a Biblicist in Our Choices?" by Pastor Erick Garcia
This message will lay down what ought to be the underlying, fundamental basis or authority for belief and behavior - not tradition, not experience, not church, not reason, not research but divine revelation found in God's Word, the Bible.
Seminar 2: 3-4 PM "How Decisions Are Affected If There Are Errors in the Bible" by Pastor Jared Garcia
This will address underlying concerns on the Bible's trustworthiness and why orthodox Christianity upholds the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy - that all other bases are flawed and fallible.
Seminar 3: 6-7 PM To be arranged
Service 1: 7-8 PM "Excellence in Missions" by Dr. Ron White
February 24, Tuesday
Seminar 1: 9-10 AM "Man's Interpretation or God's Integrity" by Pastor Gary Jones
This will underscore the importance of taking God at His Word, that the meaning of the Scripture is found in the text of Scripture (author's intent - not in the imagination of the reader), and that the proper reading of the Scriptures is an issue of God's integrity, not simply a preference to a particular hermeneutical approach.
Service 2: 1-11 AM "Excellence in Music" by Dr. Ron White
Seminar 3: 6-7 PM "Are We Settling for Substitutes?" by Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco
This will underscore the importance of the Christian's living a separated life and highlight the tragedy all can expect for making choices based on the world's principles, even for those who claim to be identified with the fundamentalist camp.
Service 3: 7-8 PM "Excellence in Ministry" by Dr. Ron White
February 25, Wednesday
Seminar 1: 8:30-10 AM Panel Discussion
Service 4: 10-11 AM "Excellence for the Master" by Dr. Ron White
Wednesday, October 08, 2014
25th Fundamental Bible Conference (2nd Far East Regional Conference of International Partnership Ministries), Oct. 27-31
Oct. 29-31 at The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 15 Julia Vargas St. Ortigas Center, Pasig City
For inquiries, you may call 829-37-33; 801-67-89; 514-83-40; 636-55-35.
The one-time registration fee of P150.00 will enable delegates to avail of notes and pens, and to attend all the sessions. Visit and "Like" us at Facebook for updates and details of time schedules.
Lineup of seminar speakers:
- Dr. Kevin Callahan, President of IPM, Hanover, Pennsylvania
- Dr. Bill Bowen, IPM International Representative
- Rev. Matthew Barfield, IPM Vice-President of Field Ministries
- Pastor Jun Gonzales, Pastor of Las Pinas Baptist Church, Las Pinas
- Pastor Abet Tiangco, Pastor of Promised Land Baptist Church, Malabon
- Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco, Foundation Baptist Church, Pasig City
- "Ethical Concerns Regarding Electronic Pleasures" by Pastor Abet Tiangco
- "God's Design for the Christian Home" by Pastor Jun Gonzales
- "Discerning Errors of the Charismatic Movement" by Dr. Kevin Callahan
- "Decisions by Convenience, Covetousness, or Conviction" by Rev. Matthew Barfield
- "Biblical Separation Applied" by Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco
- "The Role of Prayer in Global Missions" by Dr. Bill Bowen
- "Assurance When You Are Afflicted"
- "How to Bring Faith to Your Family
- "How to Have a Double Portion of God's Blessings
- "Bringing Great Joy to Your City"
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
|Plain Language summary:|
 Sections 7, 23 and 24 of the RH law obligate hospital or medical practitioners to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs.
 The obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector.
“Generally, healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs.”
 Exception: in life-threatening cases, healthcare providers cannot invoke freedom of religion.
“But an exception must be made in life threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger.”
 Freedom of religion preferred in Constitution; Benevolent neutrality doctrine
“In case of conflict between the State and Constitution’s free exercise of religion clause, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality” which is “the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution.”
 No compelling State interest to set aside benevolent neutrality
 Relevant US case: “Supreme Court Sides with Hobby Lobby”
“In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require faith-based companies to provide potentially abortifacient contraceptives to their employees in violation of their owners' religious beliefs.” (Read the complete decision.)
Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; xxx
Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; xxx
Obligation to refer violates freedom of religion
“Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH law commonly mandate a hospital or a medical practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs.” The Court ruled that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector:
The Court further explained:Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking information on modem reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas has written, "at the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience."
Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, however, a false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers complicit in the performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do directly. One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the offensive act by indirect participation.
Freedom of religion preferred in Constitution
The Court said:
Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good."
Penalties by RH law on healthcare service providers who refuse to refer are un-Constitutional
The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by law endeavor to ensure compliance. Without set consequences for either an active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be toothless and ineffectual.
Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform reproductive health procedure on a patient because incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the Court cannot allow.
Exception: in life-threatening situations, healthcare providers cannot invoke freedom of religion
While generally healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs, an exception must be made in life threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger.
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality
In striking down these provisions, the Supreme Court said that "in case of conflict between the State and Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality" which is "the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution."
The Court explained what benevolent neutrality is all about:
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance."
No compelling State interest to set aside benevolent neutrality
The Court may set aside benevolent neutrality if there is a compelling state interest. In the case of the RH law, the Office of the Solicitor General said that the compelling State interest was "fifteen maternal deaths per day, hundreds of thousands of unintended pregnancies, lives changed." But the Court rejected this argument:
The undisputed fact, however, is that the World Health Organization reported that the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped to 48 percent from 1990 to 2008, although there was still no RH Law at that time. Despite such revelation, the proponents still insist that such number of maternal deaths constitute a compelling state interest.
Friday, June 06, 2014
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Reproductive Health law is Constitutional. But the Court has also said that several provisions of the RH law are un-Constitutional because they violate the freedom of speech and freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. As to the moment when life begins, the Court said that it is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided without proper hearing and evidence. But the Court allowed each Justice to express personal views on this issue.
Justice Jose C. Mendoza is the ponente (writer) of the Court’s decision on the RH law. He expressed his view that life begins at fertilization, not when the fertilized egg has been implanted on the uterine wall.
“In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.”(Note: Statements in Supreme Court decisions that do not affect rulings, like personal views, are called obiter dicta.)
“This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes. Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.”
Overview of Justice Mendoza’s views:
|Plain and legal meaning||Webster’s Third New International Dictionary describes conception
as the act of becoming pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the fertilization
that results in a new entity capable of developing into a being like its
Black’s Law Dictionary gives legal meaning to the term “conception”as the fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions.
Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan S. Montano
Gonzales v. Carhart
|Medical parlance||Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines conception
as “the beginning of pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon
enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote.” It describes fertilization
as “the union of male and female gametes to form a zygote from which
the embryo develops.”
The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics)
|Intention of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution||Records of the Constitutional Convention also shed light
on the intention of the Framers regarding the term “conception”used
in Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. From their deliberations,
it clearly refers to the moment of “fertilization.” The records
reflect the following:
Rev. Rigos: In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads:
“The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.”
When is the moment of conception?
Mr. Villegas: As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
“Where is God When Things Go Wrong?” by evangelist and apologist John Blanchard is a free PDF booklet to download from David Legge’s www.preachtheword.com and by kind permission of www.evangelicalpress.org (Note: This download is for personal use only and should not be printed or copied. The book can be ordered singly or in bulk from Evangelical Press.)
Why should issues of good and evil, or human suffering, cause any problems? If the British philosopher Bertrand Russell was right to dismiss man as ‘a curious accident in a backwater’, why should it matter in the least whether lives are ended slowly or suddenly, peacefully or painfully, one by one or en masse? If the Oxford professor Peter Atkins, another dogmatic atheist, is right to call mankind ‘just a bit of slime on a planet’, why should we be remotely concerned at the systematic slaughter of six million Jews or half a million Rwandans? Are we traumatized when we see slime trodden on or shoveled down a drain? The whole world wept over the destruction and death brought about by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, but why not have the same anguish over the fate of beetles or bacteria, rats or reptiles? If human beings are simply the result of countless chemical and biological accidents, how can they have any personal value, and why should we turn a hair if dictatorial regimes or natural disasters dispose of them by the million? The same applies to violence or bloodshed on a personal or limited basis. If we are nothing more than biological flukes, with no meaningful origin or destiny, why should the way we treat each other matter more than the way other creatures behave?
How can we jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality? If we are merely genetically programmed machines, how can we condemn anything as being ‘evil’, or commend anything as being ‘good’? Why should we be concerned over issues of justice or fairness, or feel any obligation to treat other ‘machines’ with dignity or respect? When people respond to tragedy by asking, ‘How can there be a just God?’ their question is logically flawed, as without him words like ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ are purely matters of personal opinion.