Real-World Dealings: When Religion Becomes a Sparring Match, Playing With Souls

Manny Pacquiao/Chris Algieri

So Manny Pacquiao has won via unanimous decision AND scoring 6 knockdowns against Chris Algieri*. Filipinos all over the world can feel that feel-good vibes. Once again, #proudpinoy can be seen all over the internet. Tonight on Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho Pacquiao could not stop talking about God, attributing the blessing of winning to God alone. He kept on saying, "If God is with us, who can be against us?". We should not wonder why Floyd Mayweather is hesitant (I'd say mortally afraid) to fight Pacquiao squarely, without the drama Floyd Mayweather is known for. 

Manny Pacquiao told his tale animatedly. Many people count this as the fruits of his Pastorship. But religion has got nothing to do with how he is. I mean even when he was once a staunch Roman Catholic, Manny was the all-smiles, giddy, Bisaya, who clutched the Rosary and genuflected in every aftermath of his boxing match. This time, however, Pacquiao quoted from the Bible.

Ever since Pacquiao became this People's Champ, Roman Catholics and many Protestant sects had formed an arm-wrestling match vying as to which religious camp proves to be authentic. Before his conversion, Roman Catholics lauded Pacquiao-- the rest of the Protestant camp just didn't care, or worse, prayed for Pacquiao's conversion away from the evils of Roman Catholicism. When Pacquiao announced his conversion to Born Again-ism, it was the Roman Catholics who then got agitated and prayed for Pacquiao to come back to the folds of his birth-religion.

Much as I would love to see the whole Earth becoming Orthodox Christians, the conversion of the heart and theosis belongs SOLELY to God and the person in whom God lives. What we can do, as mere humans, IS TO PRAY for the conversion of ALL souls and enable each other in his/her theosis. I have no business judging Manny Pacquiao on his choice of religion. Just as I have no right interfering on a monogamous, faith-based relationship of a gay couple with kids. Ultimately, all things belong to God, and the fate of all will be in His hands.   

Photo credit:

http://www.tsmplug.com/boxing/manny-pacquiao-vs-chris-algieri-date-time/

*http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/11923802/manny-pacquiao-defeats-chris-algieri-unanimous-decision-retain-welterweight-title

Complexities: A Reality Stupid Filipinos Reject-- A Reflection on How Most Filipinos Weigh In On Jennifer Laude's Case

A quick trip to the comment's section in every website bearing Laude's case gave me the uninvited chills that ran down my spine and settled in my gut-- as if something as ghastly as Filipino stupidity is ever so welcome.  I can understand it when people feel uncomfortable-- more like, DISGUSTED--with the idea of transgender individuals living among us. I understand them NOT because I sympathize with the ICK! factor they got, but because, I had known what it was like to believe that human beings, and God, have a contract between them-- a sort of business wherein the employee is strictly under the boss whether the employee likes the situation or not.

In a heated debate between American Catholic League president Bill Donohue and Irish journalist and atheist Christopher Hitchens, Donohue said that the freedom God has intended for us is the freedom to do what you OUGHT to do.  

The usage of modal OUGHT in a sentence implies something has to be done out of duty. Now one may think that OUGHT tells us to do something regardless of our inkling with that which ought to be done. In other words, as Donohue put it in the context of the debate, we do not have that much choice BUT to obey God since that would keep us from harm-- absolute obedience to God gives us the free pass into heaven. 

Well, here are the problems in that assertion: (A) That, to say God created us for absolute obedience means we have no freewill to question God Himself. (B) That, to accept (A) we have to act based on OUGHTs, since we can not question God about it (C) And, since we have to base our actions on OUGHTs because God requires it and we can never question it from the basis that God requires absolute obedience then (D) we basically have no freewill-- we are merely acting on a memo sent down from the heavens and to fail to act on it means eternal hell. 

I am not an atheist (as one can tell from this blog), but I do get what Christopher Hitchens make of God out of Donohue's assertion: that God is not a loving God, He is a tyrant worth rebelling against--- if, according to Hitchens, God were true.  Because, we have to understand; nothing pisses off an atheist like having their personal freedoms curtailed by a cosmic bogeyman.  

In the light of the recent murder of Jennifer Laude (the transgender individual slain by American Pfc. Joseph Scott Pemberton), Donohue's meaning for God and life is pretty much the meaning given by many Filipinos. When the news of Jennifer's murder came out in the open, Filipinos were quick to blame the victim: Jennifer Laude had it coming. 

Because Jennifer Laude, like any individual who 'failed' to be linear, was destined to die-- and to avoid this kind of death, one must fall in line with linearity, and march along. 

The sad thing about the case is Jennifer Laude was automatically dubbed as Bayot Salot not surprisingly, by rigorously uptight so-called Bible believers. And as a pejorative, I dub them Bible thumpers-- they would very much believe in two things: 1. In their own understanding of the Bible and 2. In unfounded conspiracies-- a deadly mix. For them, Jennifer Laude stopped being human the moment she rejected her gender assigned by birth and strove to be female. For them, being heterosexual is the ultimate benchmark, or at least, one of the many requirements to get into heaven. It's like earning points in a test, you know; you get to choose which items will be easier for you to get the highest mark. And for many Filipinos, forget the complexities of human psychology and sexuality because it's bull, it's waaay easier to believe that our genitals are solely for procreation and that being straight means you're capable of squeezing your way in into the narrow gates of heaven.

In the gospels and the entire Bible, our sexual identity never made it to the cut of the list of Jesus's "requirements":

1. Love the Lord God with all our mind, with all our soul, with all our heart, and with all our strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37)

2. Love our neighbors as we love ourselves. (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39)

3. Please God with our faith (Psalms 51: 16-17, Hebrews 11:6) 

4. Make our faith alive through good works or corporal acts of mercy. (Genesis 22, James 2:14-26)

5. "Negative freedoms" or even moral excesses should be avoided because it harms not only us but also others. (Sirach ch 6, 1 Corinthians ch. 6)

Many Filipinos do not want "complexities". We want to have things easy: instead of language, we want jejemon or FB stickers, instead of wealth distribution and economics, we want DAP, instead of livelihood and stable jobs, we want cash transfers.  

Complexities require paradoxes; we do not want to live in paradoxes. The Bible tells us that "anyone who tries to save his life shall lose it; anyone who loses his life shall save it". In one verse, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ came in peace, in the next , it tells us that Jesus Christ came to cause division by the sword. Ultimately, the paradoxes are edifying and salvific: because instead of having us shrink into the darkness, Christ's person (a living paradox) pulls us close into research: what could those incongruities mean? How can those seemingly illogical verses mean anything but illogical? Or does the Bible, more importantly, the Gospel, mirror the psycho-spiritual state of our broken Imago Dei? Perhaps, Jesus Christ tells us to live through our grand oxymoron design, to bear this shameful and anomalous Cross, so that we can be in full communion with the Trinity. 

Filipinos do not want to have spiritual and mind exercises: most of us are content with what the local media tells us. For all the barrage of station IDs all claiming that their own TV stations, one is the true bastion of truth, the others aren't, the very soul of these crony capitalistic monsters are soap operas, telenovelas, Koreanovelas. Each story tells the bland and uniform ideals that can be bent and re-cast: girl is in despair, a prince charming arrives; prince charming is a bad boy with strings of girlfriends and FUBUs, desperate princess is a virginal good girl then she helps this stupid bad boy who doesn't seem to know what's good or bad for him. Then we also have the used and tired TV trope of a rich-bitch kontrabida versus a poor-saintly bida. And we ask ourselves, why do we have trash Filipino attitude and thinking? 

We want the comfort linear, black-and-white, monolithic, conformity brings: like a dog returning to its vomit and then consuming it because it can't devour anything else more nourishing than acid reflexes.  

Unfortunately most Filipinos have adopted this "monolithic" thinking into playing Sherlock Holmes; how deplorable the idea is. The legendary, fictional character draws out his deductions based on the evidences presented to him using a variety of unorthodox practices; sometimes voodoo, like astrophysics or alchemy, even astrology. And this "variety" has helped him solved many cases, not to mention Watson. 

Filipinos lack "variety"-- the Laude case, and thousands of other sexual/assault crimes, amplifies this. The tendency to blame the victim in sexual crimes stems from the old and rehashed prejudice of "wives provoked their husbands to beat them". What these Filipinos fail to see is that we are now living in a world more mind-boggling than it was before. So the framework of husbands justified in maiming their wives out of jealousy needs to be put to rest. Today, we are seeing men (gay or straight) victimized in an abusive relationship. It seems scales are finally falling off from their eyes. They can now look at evidences siding with the victims. Funny, this has only happened when we found out that men can be victims too: why is this a trend? How come men are justified to be portrayed as authentic victims, at the receiving end, while women victims are treated as the "source" of domestic violence? I see this pattern also in the Jennifer Laude case.

Monolithic, quasi-religious "Christian Taliban" Filipinos (and some atheists who believe in Scientism and rejects the reality of complexity) found Jennifer Laude as a sort of a freaky evil leprechaun who had tricked the dashing, handsome, but naive Pfc. Pemberton. However, if one follows the news, saw the available CCTV footage, it seems the roles had been reversed: now we have a transgender dead and the case could not be simply VFA, but it could also be a "hate crime" regardless of Pemberton's motives for killing Jennifer Laude. 

Given that Jennifer Laude was born male, and she chose to be female (according to reports, she had breast implants and indeed had gender reassignment), the chances of victim-blaming was high. Bear in mind that in the culturally-induced naivete of Filipinos, a woman is a "play thing" or a "property"-- in the master-slave dynamic of heterosexual relationships, the man (in this case, Pemberton), has all the power to do as he pleases. Therefore, if the plaything (Laude, now a woman) has done something wrong, or something displeasing to the master, and when the master physically "punishes" her, he is right to do so; the woman has no choice but to accept her fate. 

Thus, I am not surprised (though it made me feel like punching someone) that Filipinos saw Jennifer Laude as "the wife who provoked her husband into beating her". On the other hand, these poop-brain Filipinos rallied behind Pemberton and actually hailed him as a hero! Not only because he is an American soldier (We've been taught by our American colonizers that they are our liberators), but also because he had successfully wiped out an LGBT member, a BAYOT SALOT. 

Prejudices arise when we opt for a black and white TV tube instead of a technicolor diorama. We have to begin practicing accepting the fact that people are as diverse as the stones found in the beach sand, unconditional love and perfect justice are the key to help us get along. This the paradox of life: our unity relies not on uniformity, but on understanding diversity and finding a way how to make us fit into one together. 

Orthodox Christianity: My Conversion

(A continuation of Orthodox Catholicism: Faith-Based and Action-Oriented part 1)

http://abrahamsdescendant.blogspot.com/2014/02/orthodox-christianity-faith-based-and.html

So what was I searching for? It was clear to me that what I was looking for was a Church who could help me grow spiritually and make me certain that the one I believe in is the pillar and ground  of Truth-- a Church that has ties with Christ; the Church whom Christ is going to come back for. Contemplating on this, it revitalized in me my yearning to belong to that Church. 

So I started with churches which had a more traditional leanings albeit protestant, and the one that caught my attention was Eli Soriano's ADD program (the name of the church he built is "Members Church of God International"). This group strove to follow what original Christianity has done (this is called Christian Primitivism or Restorationism)-- a rather novel idea from classic Protestants such as Zwingli and Calvin (both former Roman Catholics). I was impressed by the way Eli Soriano had his exposition: he used sola scriptura effectively and efficiently and his dry, acerbic wit won the hearts of mostly anti-Roman Catholic sentinels (and non-practicing Roman Catholics as well), the MCGI has earned the ire of another rival protestant INC (Iglesia Ni Cristo). (Soriano and the Manalos--the INC corporate family have been throwing each other mud balls ever since Soriano called Felix Manalo a rapist of girls, and INC members called Soriano a gay rapist... Wait, what the heck: they're BOTH rapists?)

As cheesy as this may sound, but the truth is I prayed to God and asked Him if this was indeed the truth. So I asked Him a sign. There was no answer overnight. But it seems Divine Providence guided me into further researching. Although I majored in English, I have always been a fan of 20th century European history. I loved scouting for books about Hitler and the Holocaust. I took time reading and re-reading bios and interpolations of scholars on the life of Hitler and other infamous 20th century dictators. Then it hit me. I started searching through the internet about the names I have met before: David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith. L. Ron Hubbard, etc., all having the common thread of "god complex". I hate to break it to anyone patronizing the said names, but if anyone tries to sell religion, the best way is to at least make yourself a convincing arbiter of any holy writ.

Hitler sold his ideas by Ubermensch-- in this case he was the superman of the third reich. David Koresh and Jim Jones had this wonderful idea that they alone were hearers of other-worldly voices, Joseph Smith sort of copied the Muslim prophet Muhammad claiming two angels gave him "a bible" in a cave somewhere. L. Ron Hubbard turned science fiction into a religious belief, effectively fooling some hollywood big shots. Not that I detest the freedom to believe in anything you want to believe in, but at least, be very respectful of human intellect, of yourself, and do some intense soul-searching before taking that leap of faith. Many were not careful and they became willing tools for massive genocide and canon fodder for apparent dictators.   

Apparently, this reality of an over-controlling leader became a repellant for me. Eli Soriano, just like the Manalos of Iglesia Ni Cristo, could be the next poster boy for a potential ala-Westboro Baptist Church patriarch. There are many things in what he said in his program that contradicted sane historical and biblical analysis-- it's not enough that you know how to read the Bible and what books to read in the Bible for certain topics. For instance, Soriano (and some Manalistas do this) would use auto search of a particular word or phrase in the Bible, and when it's not found, he rules the word out as non-existent in "proper theology" and therefore claims it to be "heretical". Back then, I immediately found this problematic: The ADD group headed by Soriano is fond of using King James Version (I think that he is one of those KJV-ONLY Christians), and he only uses Catholic Bibles for proof texting. If one uses an auto-search for certain keywords, and it so happens that a particular Bible doesn't have that word BECAUSE it's King James Version Bible, then to declare a word, or phrase, or statement "unbiblical" IS BIASED. What if that particular word appears in Koine Greek, or Latin, or Arabic? Furthermore, auto-search softwares (or engines) are limited in their design-- softwares like the ones he fondly uses DOES NOT include the essential, historical and contextual use of a certain phrase or word. In this respect, Soriano is no better or worse than the Manalo clan; a short-sighted, messed up theology, based on pseudo-intellectualism (BOTH heretical cult leaders CLAIM to understand Hebrew and other ancient languages.) can hardly be called Christianity.

The warnings were blinking blood red. So I had to back off.

I turned my sights to Roman Catholicism.

This was during my fourth year in college that I began reading into Roman Catholic teachings-- the infallibility of the Pope, Original Sin, Purgatory, hell, atonement, Mary's immaculate conception, celibacy of the clergy, etc., I have to admit that there were still in me the Protestant "allergy" against any sort of hierarchy. I had questions like: Why is the Pope infallible? In what aspect is he infallible? Is Original Sin a satisfying explanation on why we sin and why God loves us? Is there a purgatory? What is hell? Is hell a physical realm? Was Mary born unblemished? ETCETERA.

As I continued my search, juggling my studies with it, I realized I have unearthed something MORE than I could take. The answers I found for my questions were thorny (until now, they are) and answers were coupled with even more agonizing queries which I had to wrestle on my own with God. At this point in my life, I was a total train wreck, I had no one to turn to. I had no spiritual guide. And some nights, I cry myself to sleep thinking about the poor state of my soul. This coincided with the fact that I had almost given up studying in college because of financial problems (I wanted to ask my mother if I could stop studying and get a job) and I was preparing for the pre board exam. I felt like I was floating in air or something like that-- like I had Red Horse poured into my veins.

At this point also, I drank. I didn't know how I developed this tasteful need for beer (until now I drink, occasionally). I started letting go of my "search". All of a sudden this great depression pressed against me, To ward it off, I became a vulture at school devouring thesis, fell in and out of love, befriended misery, joined extracurricular projects at college, drifted, taught, tutored, drank some more, partied some more, did thesis again (First proposal, rejected, second one was shitty but it was OK'd for no apparent reason except because it was for ENGLISH), forced to love Statistics even when I found it repulsive. But all these carrying on could not hide my insatiable need to learn the truth. I could have gone agnostic or atheist; but the fact of there is something rather than nothing is what kept me fueled. With desire to search for the True Faith (in Greek, Orthodoxy means correct glory), I knew I couldn't give up just yet.

SO I dug in for a while Roman Catholicism.

I found that Papal Infallibility, mandatory clerical celibacy, Mary as co-redemptrix, Mary's immaculate conception, Fatima, even the doctrine of Original Sin and Substitutionary Atonement, were recent innovations. Plus, the Crusades, numerous wars the Roman Catholic Church had been involved, "Doctrine of Discovery"-- series of papal bulls stating that any land which were "discovered" by Catholic imperialists must be declared "Catholic" regardless of the inhabitants' protestations; be Roman Catholic and surrender to the Monarchy, or die.

To cut the long story short, I dug my way waaay back and the final destination was Eastern Orthodox Catholicism (or in short hand, Orthodox Christianity). Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Roman Catholicism. I don't cast a sly look at protestants who became Roman Catholics. But my conversion wasn't based on whims of feelings. I encountered self-doubt and I doubted God in the process. I needed evidence that the Holy Trinity INDEED built a Church that is a hospital for those who need her and at the same time historical and biblical; where the Mysteries of God are alive in the Mass (Orthodox Christians call this Divine Liturgy), where there is a direct lineage from Christ Himself and the Apostles down to the Priests today, where today's faithful can celebrate the Eucharist together with the Saints in heaven, all of these I found in the Orthodox Church. I don't know how some people found their way from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, but I do know that the claims of Orthodox Catholicism corroborate well what the Bible describes the Church to be and Church History. 

Saved By Grace: Why I Changed My Mind About Same Sex Attraction and Same Sex Marriage

I have deleted my series of posts about Homosexuality.

Through contemplation and reflection, I have come to realize that the vitriol I had in those write-ups were mostly grounded not on Tradition and Scripture but on Fundamentalist and Bible Only beliefs. In short, they were mostly from ignorance and "hate". As an Orthodox Christian, I don't believe in Sola Scriptura--the Protestant doctrine of how one should read the Bible: AS IS. Funny, most Sola Scriptura fans, the ones who claim to follow Jesus right to the dot, are the ones who'd go out in the streets and protest Lady Gaga's concert as though that's part of the 'prerequisite' on how you get to Heaven. Well, it seems to me they are the face of, what Os Guinness remarked about "christianity", "poor talkative Christianity".

So here are the reasons why I have a renewed mind:

1. God is Love, not a moral tyrant

One of the most amazing things about Orthodox Christianity is its emphasis on God's unconditional love, shown  in the Scriptures, alive in the Divine Liturgy. We do not have the faulty doctrine of "Original Sin" wherein human beings were born utterly depraved, a piece of feces in a puddle of mud, not worthy of God's immaculateness, that Jesus Christ had to die to appease the anger of God. What we do have is the doctrine of "Ancestral Sin" wherein human beings were created essentially good. But when sin came, our essential goodness was marred and what took place now was Death. Our propensity to sin, as a result of Satan tricking Adam and Eve, and NOT because we were born sinners, is what keeps us from God and what keeps us close to Death. So, to redeem us from the vicious cycle of sinning and dying, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the Cross NOT to appease the emotions of an angry deity, but to trample Death by His Death and make us triumphant through His resurrection.  

The doctrine of Original Sin--a concept shared both by Roman Catholics and Protestants--for what it's worth, I believe is the reason why we have churches hell-bent on destroying LGBT persons and stopping them from loving each other.

Original Sin adherents are always trying to "appease" God. They are mainly concerned of keeping their churches "pure" otherwise they are all going to hell. They are the vanguards of Christian "fascism"-- piety first before mercy; as St. Maria of Skobtsova remarked: "Piety, piety but where is the love that moves mountains?"   

To believe that we somehow need to appease God in some other ways except through the participation in the Mysteries is legalism at its finest.Legalism shows fear. But Christ told us to never fear; never be afraid! Christ has set us free. He has set us free from fear. 1 John ch.4:18 says: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.   

2. Jesus Christ established a Kingdom not a Fandom

Blind faith is Christian Fascism.

Ever heard of a "groupie'? It means a group uncritical followers of a pop band or a famous singer. They are the ones who'd challenge you on youtube once you said J-Biebs is overrated. (Which actually I think he is.) 

I am not a professional debater. But debating so-called Christians on the internet who are against Gay marital unions is like talking to a wall with lots of graffiti on it: you may shout all you want, but there's no way graffitti will go. I mean, their ideas (many of those ideas come from Fundamentalist groups) sound like they were indeed brainwashed-- they were just parroting what their pastors and priests said. Whenever I presented a critique of their views on homosexuality I was immediately bombarded by emotionalism; things like: 'I don't care what you say, I follow Christ! You are an intellectual wannabe who thinks like a 6th grade trying to get a G.E.D!' (as though he is the only one who struggles to follow Christ and that he's a genius of some sort) or some copy-pasted quotes from John Piper or Duck Dynasty. But when prodded, none of those weight as actual counter-arguments.

Jesus "fanatics" have a bitter history, a trait they share with militant atheists. These Jesus "freaks" (Bible literal interpreters) were responsible for antisemitism, racial apartheid, misogynism, gender segregation, etc. They are so good at giving religion a bad name. And sometimes, the litmus test on how to figure out if a Christian is a true follower of Christ or a "groupie", is by how they fair well with LGBT persons. I'm not saying that Christians who are anti-gay marriage are "fanatics". Just because they don't agree with Gay Marriage does not mean they hate Homosexuals. They still see gays as human beings who ought to be respected and not judged. However, they see homosexual sex as an "abomination before the Lord". (As a matter of fact, there are Gay people (who are both protestant and Catholic) who are against Gay Marriage!) But it must be noted that what these anti-gay marriage Christians (who do not despise gay people) BELIEVE IN concerning gay marriage ARE THE SAME BELIEFS held by Christian bigots. Case in point are the draconian laws in some countries in Africa wherein same-sex relations are punishable by death. In Uganda, lots of gay-shaming in the media happen. Corrective rapes of lesbians and gays are rampant (and for the most part, pregnancy and AIDS happen); the worst of these corrective rapes result to murder. The point of concern here is not only the horrific loss of precious human lives but the fact that many Evangelicals in America support these demonic and unChristian measures with money from their offering plates.

The mindset has to change. I have known well-meaning Christians who disagree with Same-Sex love. However, there is a gnawing sense in me, the longing to ask them: "How do you condemn the corrective rapes, the slaughter of Gays, the marginalization of gays by fellow Christians who share your disagreements on everything gay-- and they love the Bible too!?"


3. Gays choose to be chaste and celibate too

Wait a minute, a Christian contender rebutts, sex is a gift from God! It ought not to be abused!

Andy Warhol

Well, I agree with that. Any Christian who strives to follow Christ will tell you that sexual sin is indeed tempting and ALL OF US fall short on the Chastity/Purity Department. I am, by God's grace, physically a virgin. True that, I was once kissed. I enjoyed heavy petting and the rush of blood when you're so close to doing the deed. But most of the time the argument of "sex is a gift from God" usually has entailment like this: "You're gay, therefore you engage in anal sex (or Cunnilingus), therefore you spread AIDS!" Such generalization is misleading. You don't get AIDS by just being Gay, or by sharing things with Gays. You get AIDS when you engage in unprotected sex with a man or with a woman, share needles in a drug spree, bloodletting, or you were born of an HIV positive mother who did not take proper medication.

Henri Nouwen

Gay people were demonized during the height of AIDS epidemic not only in America but also in Asia (specifically Philippines). This isn't to say that Gay people weren't infected, in fact, a huge percentage of those victims were Gay men. In the Philippines (as of 2013), 96% of those infected with AIDS are men who have sex with men and 90% of those are single men. This isn't to say that MSM are exclusively Gay in orientation. Some in those 96% were OFWs and were married. The spread of AIDS, undoubtedly, was the result of abusing God's "gift". However, instead of seeing this phenomenon as encompassing ALL genders, the ultra-religious puritans were quick to spare their sexually immoral straight brethren by putting the blame on Gay people. The equation was quite simple: GAYS=SEX MANIACS=AIDS. The imprint left on those small minds was that ALL GAYS were walking HIV virus sticks.

Father Seraphim Rose

Reading bios of Andy Warhol, Henri Nouwen, and Father Seraphim Rose can easily tell us that "Gays=Sex Maniacs=AIDS" is not the usual scene. Andy Warhol, known as leading figure in Visual Arts in America, was a Byzantine Catholic and celibate. Henri Nouwen was a Roman Catholic priest and professor: virgin and celibate. Father Seraphim (Eugene) Rose, an admitted homosexual, chose to become an Orthodox Christian Monk. I do believe there are scores of Gays like them in the whole gay population. And their purpose was simple: to glorify Christ through their celibacy and involvement in making the world a better place. Unwittingly, on their parts, they have destroyed the stigma on Gay people effectively.


4. Just because they can't beget children does not make Gay couples INVALID.

I learned not to trust surveys or polls. I find them misleading. One poll is anti-gay, another one (by the same standards) is pro-gay and both polls show bigotry, nothing else. To reduce the worth of human beings to mere survey variables is to create division among peoples. My advice to persons who would wish to know more about Gays and LGBT persons is to know ONE.
Love, by biblical and traditional standards, has been alien to us ever since our first parents sinned. What is not lost is our ability to find Love, the same ability that enables us to seek God. Yet Love, for it to be pure, must forsake skepticism (fear).
I am amazed at theists who speak of human sexuality in their most Naturalistic tendencies. Our bodies are not mere baby-making machines, our bodies are made by Love for Love. And the extension of that Love is the new-born baby. This is the answer I give to theists/atheists/Anti-theists/Agnostics who say that Gay Love can't be natural because it doesn't produce new life. Gay Love DOES produce new life. Do we dare say that straight couples who cannot bear children DEVOID of any loving gift?

 Photo credit:

http://moonspenders.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
http://salliesart.blogspot.com/2011/06/sacred-heart.html
QuoteHD.com
wikipedia.com

Decadence Of Our Times: Idealism, Deceitful DJs

For most students, everything in the world is all about peace signs

I am a woman of words. It is only through words, whether through pen and paper or through a bullhorn, that I can fight back against the satanic current engulfing our society.

I always relish opportunities, at any given time or place, to speak out my mind and to show some pieces of my heart.

And as a teacher, it has always been a standard operation to walk the talk and talk the walk.

TALK THE WALK.

I always encourage my students to open up with whatever "matters"--whether these are matters of the heart or matters of the report card.

It is through constant communication that a teacher can get to know her students very well.

And though I'm a millennial, there are somethings in this post-modern age that only high school-aged youths could understand. I wouldn't say that my "times" were better, but I could say that I'm thankful I have had my mother and my former school teachers (who, I'm proud to say, are now my colleagues) who instilled in us the value of patience in serious study and emboldened us to become action-geared thinkers.       

I am currently teaching Grade 8 students. And I am shocked at the naivete displayed by my students: none of them are enraged by the PDAF scandal, few (almost non-existent) of these kids could care less about Yolanda's impact in our history, I have talked to some of them and they could only shrug at the terrible outcry of cry-baby leftists over the ROTC's atrocities and why that institution (which helped us win the war over the Japs in WWII) should be abolished. 

But ask them about the unfortunate trinity of Vhong Navarro, Deniece Cornejo, and Cedric Lee, and these students would even hold an hour-long debate on whether Vhong could still be an available boyfriend or not. 

It's still in my memory what it was like to be very young and idealistic. When I was in my first year, our favorite topic would be about the impact of Asian Telenovelas and how they were affecting our culture as a whole. We would also talk about religion and have debates over it and share a trivia or two about the Vatican. When I was in my second year I found many like-minded peers who were incensed by the Makati Mutiny and the going-nowhere-case of Supreme Master Ruben Ecleo Jr. the cultic dick who chainsawed his wife and dumped the body in some ravine in Cebu (In 2004, he also killed, by a hitman, his tireless prosecutor, Mrs. Arbet Yongco.) We intensely followed the Ecleo story and the trial of Estrada with smoldering abhorrence and felt extremely miserable at the havoc and destruction caused by four typhoons namely Unding, Violeta, Winnie and Yoyong... 

We were young and on fire. We felt hopeful and at the same time, clueless. We knew we couldn't carry the brunt of the world on our shoulders yet but we dared promised that we would do whatever we must in our power to change the situation. We were masochistic romantics: we chose to be ignoramuses of the hardships ahead. Unbeknownst to us were the harsh realities of what we'd like to undertake in the name of Idealism. And by the time I finished high school, I was an avowed Christian leftist and self-proclaimed liberal theologian: like most of my peers I have forged myself with what I believed in.

That was the type of youth that I was. Had it been a great ride for me? Yes. Did it work out for me? At times, NO. But it surely helped us youngsters in those days to have a solid basis for our actions: we didn't cry over the loss of a cuticle in one's toes, but we bewailed Daniel Smith's acquittal in the Subic Rape Case.

Ask a teenager nowadays about a certain topic and you'd get either a shy smile, a shrug, or "I really don't know mam".

Sure, some students do not have technology yet in their own homes. But that's a moot point: I didn't even know how to use a computer even after I graduated high school. I didn't even have a cellphone back then. What I had in my company were my walkman radio and English books. If I had some spare money, I would buy broadsheets to keep myself updated about the latest news and entertainment. I would ask my relatives about a particular subject and listen to their views and weigh them against my own.

I see how my students dodge important issues that could have adverse effect on them and their future. Back then, we would have faced them head on. These kids would rather talk about Koreans, Vice Ganda, #G2B, and everything that is pop culture. 

I guess I can't blame my students. Their era is different from mine.

THE ERA OF LOCAL DISC JOCKEY "EXPERTS"

I GUESS THE FIRST PIC IS REALLY TELLING

With some notable exceptions (that of Veritas Radio, which I strongly trust and recommend), I won't shy away from saying that some local radio stations have taken upon themselves the task of becoming public shrinks. They have placed upon their heads rather peculiar accolades: psychologists without PhDs, teachers without EDs.

I must admit that for a time, I did enjoy their radio programmes. When  you listen to the conversation between the DJ and a needy caller, it's not clinicalal, it's purely entertainment. And I was entertained, alas. I was thrown into a psychedelic fantasy that a DJs advice is everything and the one thing that is all there. I started believing in what DJs say. Like a hypnotized person, you follow orders in your sleep.

Imagine, if a DJ just told the caller to shut up, be calm, and pray, and then start doing things right? That could save all the troubles eh? But it would definitely become the cause of a DJ being fired.

The purpose of these DJs is not to give advice but to entertain, to tickle the Filipinos' knack for gossip, and satisfy patrons in segues.

You could liken these whackjobs to false prophets in the Bible that instead of pointing the people of Israel to the help of Yahweh, they took center stage and controlled the lives of these unfortunate people. 

The same thing with these self-proclaimed "friends" in the radio. It's all about them. It's all about them sounding smart, feeling great about themselves, sounding wise on sharing what they think are sound words when in fact those are just adept play on words. They victimize the public by their self-centered, deliberately careless, and irresponsible journalism hidden in sweet and funny exegesis of a caller's situation.

That's not mass communication. That's mass murder: these DJs help in killing the thinking capacity of the persons asking for help. They want the public to be emotionally mesmerized and not to be psychologically stabilized. 

But to be fair, the general public has it share of guilt for letting these shenanigans float around.

Here's my advice. If you can't carry on your own, you have four resource persons to whom you can talk to:

1. For pete's sake, talk to your parents! 

2. Your teachers at school and

3. Your friend who believes in God.

4. Your priest or pastor-- they can pray with you at the same time and absolve you of your sins.

I'm not saying one must stop listening to these Wack DJs, but don't let yourself be dragged into believing in them so much. In seeking advice, it's always better to have a real person with whom you can talk to and not with someone by the phone whom you're not sure if he or she is making faces at you and throwing "loser" signs up as you speak your woes on air.

FIN. 

PHOTO CREDIT:

http://esicommunitynews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/imgres.jpeg

http://www.greatcanadianjokebook.com/photo_jokes/77457761-gcjb%20Radio%20Announcer.jpg

Orthodox Catholicism: Faith-based and Action-Oriented

Topic:

Orthodox Christianity: A Faith-based and Action-Oriented Religion PART 1. 

First, I would like to say, my blog is purely reflectional. Nowhere in my blog entries have I claimed that I'm writing for scholarly purposes, nor will I claim thus in the near future. I am an Orthodox Christian within the Antiochian Jurisdiction. I am just a simple person musing things through my Orthodox faith.

I know that I'd be risking sounding arrogant (pardon me), or even naive, but I know that this post is a KIND OF rebuttal against protestant accusations of Catholicism. I don't shy away from owning the word Catholicism/Catholic because that's what Orthodox is: UNIVERSAL.

I would like to start from my own experiences: how on earth did I become an Orthodox Christian?

I was baptized into the Roman Catholic faith a week or so after I was born. Born in a tumultuous marriage of  Miriam Malapitan Tumacas (mother) and Renei Arcuena Tumacas (father), my baptism, as is true of all Filipino household whose members were baptized as Roman Catholics, was a hallmark for the family: it was a Rite worth cherishing.

My fondest memory of my Roman Catholicism was when my mama prodded me to recite the "Angel's Prayer" before my maternal grandmother. I was in my preschool days. It was a contest really between my older male cousin and I. The prayer was a short one: 

Angel of God my Guardian dear, to whom God's love commits me here.

Ever this day, be at my side,

To light and guard,

To rule and guide,

Amen.

I can't remember now what the prize was but I can remember the giddy feeling after my grandmother commended me for having memorized the prayer. And ever since, it stucked with me. At that point my elders in our home noticed my ability to memorize things that I've read or memorize and paraphrase things I have heard. I was, and still am, a word-smart kid. And this God-given ability was one of the driving forces in my pursuit of biblical truth.

Fast-forward to my gradeschool days. I was in my fourth grade when I discovered an affinity for the Word of God. I started reading the Bible.  If somebody asked me at that time what religion have I got, I said "Catholic".

Did I ever memorized the Rosary? To be honest, NO. I was never taught by anyone about it. 

A voracious reader ( a gift, really, from my mother who instilled in me the value of Reading), I started book-hunting in the house and in the modest library of our private elementary school. By and by, I discovered Charles Spurgeon, A.E Norrish, Reinhardt Bonke, Tim La Haye, and a dozen booklets on Protestant theology mostly in Baptist and Pentecostal traditions such as The Daily Bread. I deeply admired the power in the sermons of Charles Spurgeon and Reinhardt Bonke. A.E Norrish spoke of Christian leadership and Tim La Haye spoke in psychological tones. I was immensely apprehensive of Protestantism. I combined research with Bible reading. My first Bible was a tattered King James Version with thick English wordings. It was a well-worn Scofield Bible which was used by my uncle who's now a Pastor. I was overjoyed when I received a new Zondervan study Bible with strategies on how to read the Bible with everyday plan. When I went to church, I would respectfully refuse the prompting of our church elders for me to go with other kids and have Sunday school lessons. My reason, for a sixth grader, was simple yet profound: I didn't want to miss the sermons of the pastor. For me, as a sixth grader, THAT WAS THE REAL STUFF. No elder could remove me from my post as I listened to the engaging sermons. I diligently took notes of what the pastor said: I recorded Bible verses that I would later re-read at our house. I would write down key-words: Jesus only. Personal Savior. Have faith only. Praise and Worship. Salvation is through God. Man-made religions. Church community. I was taking in the message of the Bible the way our pastor reads it. 

The encouragement to read the Bible was fierce: it was reinforced in Youth groups and discussions. Even fierce was my grandmother's objection to the Protestant faith. She is a Roman Catholic.

At home, you'd be easily ridiculed by Catholic household members when they caught you reading the Bible. (My whole family, both on mother's and father's side, DO NOT read the Bible, albeit they claim Catholicism.) At that point, I had no good role models on how to read the Bible except my church-mates. I had never seen (until now) anyone praying the Rosary, yet they say they are Roman Catholics. At that point I was feeling hopeless and desperate. I began to see Catholicism as anti-spiritual freedom. I began to see Catholicism as a heartless, brutal, suffocating, man-made religion.   

Coincidentally, a number of folks in our household started watching Bible Exposition program of Eli Soriano that bitterly attacked the Catholics. Soriano's words were considered vulgar in the Evangelical circle, that even they (Evangelical protestants that include Born Again), refused to acknowledge Soriano. I remember at one point our pastor would remark that everything Soriano said was true, except that we Born Again must never say vulgar or bad words or curse words while defending the Word of God. The rival program, that of Iglesia Ni Cristo of the Manalos, also did not think highly of Catholics: their view had and has always been that the Roman Catholic Pope is the anti-Christ.

With all these, evangelicals, Sorianos and Manalos had one thing in common: they said that the Liturgy going, Cassock wearing, Saint worshipping, Pope loving Catholics had been duped. These denominations ALL CLAIMED that Catholicism put Faith on Jesus, second place, and man-made traditions, first place. They said and taught that Catholics had added to the Bible unnecessary stuff such as masses, Eucharist, priesthood, worship of saints, worship of Mary, etc. They also said and taught that Catholicism reduced the importance of Jesus and heavily emphasized the WORKS: confessions, tithings, praying repetitively, kissing the hand of Bishop, Feast of Saints, etc. 

With the cruelty in our household combined with invectives against Catholicism, I began to adopt a hard-core stance against what I deemed as works-based religion: I called Catholicism and the likes of it pure evil.

I joined the Youth Camp organized by the Born Again church. I was baptized and officially became a member when I was in my sixth grade. By the time I stepped into High School I was a staunch protestant believer.

In high school, it was a relief to find out that our public high school had a large library; larger than my previous school by two rooms only. I started hunting for books again but this time, I found secular books that are not friendly towards religion; not aggressive, but totally dismissive of religion. At this point I realized a searing pain within me.

I became depressed. I felt like what I have been doing, studying the Word of God, was worthless. I began to have doubts. When I went to Church, the enthusiasm was there but I began to see the capriciousness of my church-mates; like I was seeing them for the first time. Some of what they accused of Catholics was very much alive in our lives: the capriciousness, the pursuit of being known, internal conflicts, etc. Still holding on to my protestant beliefs though, by and by, I committed tardiness on church attendance. All the while I gravitated towards the teachings of Eli Soriano and his Ang Dating Daan group. The anti-Catholic rants were steep in his teachings. His tactics included heavy reliance on sola scriptura (which basically, in my view, is an argument from silence: the Bible says nothing, it means a stuff isn't true), half-baked knowledge on Hebrew, Greek, and Latin for unsuspecting and naive listeners, and Catholic bashing. His bashing included the age-old claims of Protestantism that Catholicism added unto the Bible non-truth. 

At one point I considered joining the Ang Dating Daan (the old path). I dropped the Born Again title called myself a Christian. 

Soon, I began losing interest in religion altogether. Through my Protestant "upbringing" I rationalized my not going to church by making myself believe that I am a spiritual person but not religious. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, that should be enough. Church was not important. The Bible must be read, according to one's schedule and mood. Me, myself, and I and Jesus. Once saved, always saved. 

By the time I reached college, I had completely jettisoned my "belief in religion". For me, at that time, religion was not important, Jesus was. It's enough that I read the Bible and prayed.

Yet my mental and spiritual convolusions caved me in. And I caved in to that urgings. 

I told myself: THIS CAN'T BE... That at some point I couldn't be ALL ALONE with Jesus. THERE MUST BE something else. Something was bugging me... At the back of my head, I believe that there must be a religion wherein Christ is present; that it's not true that religion was an obstacle between me and Christ. Religion IS being with Christ. Faith MUST BE manifested through works...

(to be continued)

PHOTO CREDIT:

http://www.dokimos.org/gifts/FaithAlone.gif

from

http://www.dokimos.org/main.html

Encountering God at the Dusty Road: Orthodox View On Forgiveness (part 1)

Icon of the Return of The Prodigal Son

In a Benny Hester classic, When God Ran, the song paints an intimate picture of Love: 

He ran to me, 

Took me in His arms, held my head to His chest 

And said "My son's come home again". 

Looked in my face, wiped the tears from my eyes 

With forgiveness in His voice 

He said "Son, do you know I still love you?" 

 (see:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWnbXPYUxFY)

Intentionally emotional and catchy, this 1986 chart-topper somehow capsulized the internalization of the forgiven one: the prodigal son. Yet, the experience was no doubt personalized and was drawn perhaps from the life of Benny Hester. And who would not be "caught by surprised" when one sees God running towards him? I don't believe we'd ever be the same once we encounter God in this intimate position.

Leaving romanticism aside, I believe that the "heterodox song" could not be far from the truth.

In Orthodoxy, our Lord God is not a tyrannical judge who doesn't know the word "parole" or "clemency". Nor is God the kind who just turns a blind eye on what we do out of "tolerance".
However, God expects us to MAN UP and realize our faults so we can freely surrender ourselves to Him in a loving embrace.

According to St. Mark the Ascetic,

No one is good and kind as the Lord is; but He does not forgive one who does not repent.

Luke 15: 11-32 tells us the complete details of how God forgives:

20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring[a] out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.

In my previous write-up, I have noted how the conscious and voluntary realization of our faults through notoriety and God's judgment can lead us to genuine repentance. Guilt is a symptomatic feeling that something is wrong. When our moral compass gives in, when the wall of conscience cracks, that is the time that the Holy Spirit is at work within us. Guilt should prompt us to confession and CHANGE. Once we arrive at a conscious decision, prodded by the Holy Spirit, that we need to go back home to our God, God is here drawing near us even before we can draw near Him.

(see:       http://abrahamsdescendant.blogspot.com/2014/01/in-this-life-notoriety-judgment.html)

Consider the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

For God seeks nothing else from us, save a good purpose. Say not, How are my sins blotted out? I tell thee, By willing, by believing. What can be shorter than this? But if, while thy lips declare thee willing, thy heart be silent, He knoweth the heart, who judgeth thee. Cease from this day from every evil deed. Let not thy tongue speak unseemly words, let thine eye abstain from sin, and from roving after things unprofitable. (Procatechesis)

When God forgives, it's not enough to see ourselves forgiven. We need to accept God's challenge of a new life with Him. In Orthodox speak, new life means being born again: once, we are not conscious or aware of our sins. But now that we are forgiven, we are now aware of our weaknesses so we STRIVE to change ourselves.

(to be continued...)


Photo:
http://saintannas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/prodigal-son-icon-1.png


READS:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NKJV

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.monachos.net/library/whats-new/706

http://www.wenorthodox.com/2012/12/the-bible-and-early-church-fathers-on-confession-of-sin/