Bro Eli Soriano, presiding minister of MCGI, have published a debate challenge for the Iglesia NI Cristo leader Erano Manalo, through a news media, Manila Times, and it goes partially like this: (source: https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/153827742/The-Great-Debate-That-Never-Was )

here goes…

The debate challenge was intended to end and demolish INC’s oppression against Bro Eli Soriano and the church through the rational propitious instrumentality of a decent debate wherein propriety would expose INC’s repugnant nature, simply by being subverted and inferior in terms of true religion. Your expected loss would put you in a despicable limelight wherein truth prevails, and should your oppression pursue, would be a weaker force to reckon with, now that you’re stripped off credibility. 

That’s the apparent implication of Eli’s seemingly motive for his apparently desperate proposition. You have persecuted us to excruciating heights. The only one that has magnified assaults as diversionary from its microscopic doctrinal image as exposed by Bro Eli and that you do through puffed-up malicious and relentless “mouth-gagging” assaults, so as illustrated by the Manila Times challenge. You are the only one who did this to us. Your devotion is like real Philistines–and Manalo as a lame Goliath.

Why did he insist on a leader-to-leader debate?

Bec its only you who persecuted us to this insurmountable and monstrous height. And that, you must be stopped, so as bro eli implied:

To settle our differences once and for all, and end the unchristian kind of spiritual warfare being introduced in your program 

Its like killing Goliath to defeat the whole Philistine army. Defeating Joe Ventilacion or Michael Sandoval or any less efficient minister would be less impactful as they are merely a sidekick, not the identity bearer of the church.  Its the deliberate expose of Manalo as a truth-handicap, being the leader, that would gourge with a more deadly wound. There would be no alibi. Your church would be identified as a group with an ignorant leader, blind leading the blind whereas, Joe and his breed, are not the leader, supposedly if defeated, won’t be an assurance of a blind-led church. Would God put a leader as less efficient than his subordinate? Defeating other else than the teacher won’t be as terminal. There would be alibis such as, “you defeated the student, the teacher’s attack dog, now, you did not defeat god’s oracle–the highest ranked, the better intellectual, the truthcaster–!” 

O!? Siya! Yung lamon ng lamon ang alam!?

That is how it implies.

Manalo’s non-responsiveness was a fallout with many other mudslinging and death threats afterwards and as claimed, forced Bro Eli to exile. 

Despite the fact that Manalo showed traits of cowardice, it didn’t do much favorably to Bro Eli’s personal welfare afterwards, as consequential counter-attacks become strong, as claimed, yet as blessing in disguise, its aftermath did much to the development of the church in terms of quantitative progress as it went international, much so, the recognition of the greatness of god truthfully as prophesied has a wider coverage. INC’s attack dogs trying to dilute their humiliation as naturally for damage control tried to reverse the truth saying, Bro Eli is a bluffer and coward as they purportedly utilized false claims as apparently saying, he dodged away from debate with INC prior to his Manila Times challenge even afraid to debate their outclassed ministers as Joe ventilacion.

Let’s see how they make weak alibis,

The boastful site says more:

Their damage control was mainly by two means:

  • Propagating the vilificatory image of Ang Dating Daan as a coward evading from an agreement for pre-debate conference prior to its Manila Times challenge.
  • Ministers like Joe ventilacion  were challenging Bro Eli for debate despite the proposition of bro eli for a “puno-sa-puno” debate, using it as platform to call bro eli a coward.

The thing is, dodging away from an agreement for debate is not conclusive as cowardice. There are possible circumstantial hurdles that could prevent any positive interaction. Despite this reality, as consistently their nature, demean us through this triviality, inconclusive, yet as though a conclusive reality, they, as how they make conclusive portrayal of bro eli as sodomizer before even without conclusive evidence, has likewise make this as vantage point for malicious attacks. 

Bro Eli’s rejection of Joe ventilacion’s debate challenge and wistful thinking, is not proof of cowardice either. How could it be when he already laid out his S.O.P (standard operating procedure) with regards to dealing with his oppressors, that is, “puno sa puno”. 


As our most lethal counter-offensive from your oppression, as implied!

  • Is he a coward?

Nope! Attack dogs as your ministers? Do they have academic level and achievement in like manner with scientists? 

Yet Bro Eli debated scientist Grady Mcmurthy, so how could he be afraid of INC ministers such as Joe, apparently a lower intellectual form, and academically subordinate, to reject any debate challenge or, even, as claimed, he previously dodged away from pre-debate conferences?

Come again?

He bravely fought an academic and IQ sovereign–a scientist, graduated as first rank–, but is a coward in regards to fighting an academic subordinate–the INC?

Give me a break, will ya!? Haha!

Here’s proof:

Dr. Grady’s credentials: (source: http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp )

Even Dr. Grady’s detractor recognized his superior IQ, as it say, 

Soriano debated this man, of apparently higher mental quality than INC, or Joe and he is afraid of you?!

Let’s read more damage control:

0k. So they’re saying, an inherent church attribute is, the executive minister don’t debate. Lamon at nagpapabundat. But then, they betrayed the reality that Felix Manalo trained him as a better speaker and debater, bec why would he train him to debate if it would be for uselessness? It means Felix trained him to be a frontman debater, as it say,

Trained as better debater purposed as a vistigial dummy!?

What!? Illogical! It implies, an excuse to hide a church defect: the weakest link! Why not, Felix Manalo had debates why couldn’t you? 

They admitted, INC’s executive minister is not appointed as debater. Is this an attribute of the true church? 


Church leaders must debate as exemplified by Paul as a standard principle for leaders as it say,

Philippians 1:17

[17]But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Philippians 4:9

[9]Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Church leaders, as standard principle must defend the gospel in all possible ways such as debate. This is as a faithful follower of Paul, and as implied, being a clean vessel is tasked for EVERY GOOD WORKS which obviously includes debate!

2 Timothy 2:21

[21]If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

Church leaders must debate. There is no exemption! 

Let’s recap:

  • Felix Manalo did debates. Erano/Eduardo shied away from debates. A sign of cowardice.
  • Vessels of god, implying, church leaders, are appointed for every good works, that includes debate.
  • Erano/Eduardo Manalo avoids debate. An unchristian act.

NOW, TELL US, WHO IS THE “BAYOT” AND COWARD? The one who battles a more academically superior than you or the closet queen, hiding in the closet–THE MANALOS?

Let me repost:

S.O.P for abusive INC: “puno sa puno”! 


Bec you oppressed us and we want to fight back where we know youll be demolished, such that, oppression would stop! or if not would be, least potent and least credible, at least, from social view and for weak brothers Bro Eli has always been protecting!

Now, who do you call a coward? God’s messenger or the closet queen Manalos “bayot” and– more “bayot” to come!?



  1. Propaganda. The fugitive Eliseo Soriano met a master hustler ‘Dr.’ Grady MacMurtrey! Soriano was discombobulated several times. But you can try agsin.


  2. Sid eli was not defeated. It was not a formal debate. There is time limit. Disruptions prevented a complete response. Tell me, which part of Grady’s argument has a problematic response from eli?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s