- http://www.imarc.cc/edit/harted3.html
- http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/2MarApr/ma03oden.htm
- http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/3MayJune/mj04gc-overview.htm
- http://www.ucmpage.org/fa_cm/cmfa_4.htm
- http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php
- http://www.fictionpress.com/read.php?storyid=1440163
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm
Friday, April 01, 2005
Just some links that my brother sent me to look at...
Some links to some articles concerning religion, Christianity, Methodism, the Autonomy Issue, Doctrine & Theology, etc.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Girl Name
If my firstborn happens to be a girl, Ærynn and I have already agreed on Sabrynna Joy (well, we haven't agreed on the spelling yet; I want it to be extraordinary while she doesn't want it to be attention-calling).
Anyway, just in case I get more daughters than sons here are some possibilities (in no specific order):
Anyway, just in case I get more daughters than sons here are some possibilities (in no specific order):
- Glynnis Claire
- Rhiannon Jo
- Phoebe Cynthia
- Eowyn Claire
- Amalthea Claire
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
My Passport has finally arrived!
On the off-chance that the people at the DFA would not need my marriage license and consequently I would not have to tell them that I am married to somebody who is a permanent resident in Oz,
which would therefore mean that I wouldn't have to go to the Commission of Filipinos Overseas (CFO)... whew! I went and applied last Tuesday, just before Silent Wednesday. Everything went well (all they asked of me was my Birth Certificate, my NBI Clearance and photocopies of my SSS Card); so that I wouldn't have to go back, I paid extra so that it can be delivered to me at home.
And, finally, it has been delivered to me, exactly one week later! Now Ærynn (my wife, whom I previously referred to as V-) suggests that I try getting the Statutory Declarations and photocopies of our letters, photographs, etc., if I am not yet calling the Oz embassy. Anyway, I am sifting through the documents Ærynn sent me so that I would know the next steps I would take.
It is exciting, yes, but also scary. I will be leaving the country of my birth; but as long as I can be with my wife again, I know I will be okay.
which would therefore mean that I wouldn't have to go to the Commission of Filipinos Overseas (CFO)... whew! I went and applied last Tuesday, just before Silent Wednesday. Everything went well (all they asked of me was my Birth Certificate, my NBI Clearance and photocopies of my SSS Card); so that I wouldn't have to go back, I paid extra so that it can be delivered to me at home.And, finally, it has been delivered to me, exactly one week later! Now Ærynn (my wife, whom I previously referred to as V-) suggests that I try getting the Statutory Declarations and photocopies of our letters, photographs, etc., if I am not yet calling the Oz embassy. Anyway, I am sifting through the documents Ærynn sent me so that I would know the next steps I would take.
It is exciting, yes, but also scary. I will be leaving the country of my birth; but as long as I can be with my wife again, I know I will be okay.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sadness and Nostalgia
Ever since Dad was told that he was going to undergo "mandatory retirement", he had been very sentimental and nostalgic. Actually, all of us are upset by this. Mom had finally felt that she has settled down here, Dad is beginning to enjoy the intellectual challenge of teaching students (even if he feels overworked and underpaid for his job as registrar also). E- is finally graduating, and we had been hoping he could apply for a teaching position in the Philippine Christian University (PCU) after he does; he can live with Dad here and both will be members of the faculty.
Dad and Mom, of course, had known that this would be a good place to live and work until Dad retires, but they didn't think that retirement was literally just around the corner. Dad just seems so "not old"; people who retire are those who's hair is gray or white, who walks with a cane and had some disease in their internal organs. Not Dad. Mom doesn't understand why there is such a thing as "mandatory retirement"—if one can still work, if one still desires to work, why shouldn't that one be allowed to work as long as that one can? Dad, on the other hand, had always been a defender of policy, so he will follow the ruling; but he still feels upset, since he still feels strong enough to work. In fact, ever since the birth of D.C., he has never felt younger or more energized. Sometimes, I think that one of the reasons that Dad likes going to work is so that he can show others the baby pictures of his granddaughter.
E- and F- are, as usual, much more vocal in their being upset, and much more prone to the "conspiracy" angle of it all; and I must admit, I am one with them on this. For instance, Dad has been denied a teaching post for a long time, so that his claim to being a member of the faculty would be shaky (even though the reason why he was here was because he was offered a teaching position; I saw the letter). When he finally got those teaching units, he wasn't paid according to his real worth because of the misconception that, just because he was a registrar, he was therefore "staff" and, since he had extra honorarium for that, he didn't need a raise. )Dad writes about his feelings concerning that here.) Then, all of a sudden, he is faculty again, because "staff" can stay as long as they want, but faculty would have to be retired at age 65.
I feel bad for Dad. He has been enjoying his classes. Thanks to his Blogs and to the high-speed internet provided for by the seminary, he has been writing more and his intellect is no longer stagnant. I also feel bad for Mom. She has become very sweet and nice, and both have become healthier and happier. To thrust Dad back into the loop of ecclesiastical politics, where his writing would consist of dumbing down his sermons just so that his members wouldn't think he's elitist of boring, where Mom would, once again, feel the everday stress of living in a fishbowl—this is just too cruel. At their age, too!
We can't change things. It is unfortunate, but we can't change things. And I feel bad that I can't be there for them while they are going through all of this, since I am leaving the country. E-, in fact, has told me that I shouldn't bother about it anymore, since I will be away. But one cannot stop caring for one's family, if one truly loves them, just because one is a continent and an ocean away.
Dad and Mom, of course, had known that this would be a good place to live and work until Dad retires, but they didn't think that retirement was literally just around the corner. Dad just seems so "not old"; people who retire are those who's hair is gray or white, who walks with a cane and had some disease in their internal organs. Not Dad. Mom doesn't understand why there is such a thing as "mandatory retirement"—if one can still work, if one still desires to work, why shouldn't that one be allowed to work as long as that one can? Dad, on the other hand, had always been a defender of policy, so he will follow the ruling; but he still feels upset, since he still feels strong enough to work. In fact, ever since the birth of D.C., he has never felt younger or more energized. Sometimes, I think that one of the reasons that Dad likes going to work is so that he can show others the baby pictures of his granddaughter.
E- and F- are, as usual, much more vocal in their being upset, and much more prone to the "conspiracy" angle of it all; and I must admit, I am one with them on this. For instance, Dad has been denied a teaching post for a long time, so that his claim to being a member of the faculty would be shaky (even though the reason why he was here was because he was offered a teaching position; I saw the letter). When he finally got those teaching units, he wasn't paid according to his real worth because of the misconception that, just because he was a registrar, he was therefore "staff" and, since he had extra honorarium for that, he didn't need a raise. )Dad writes about his feelings concerning that here.) Then, all of a sudden, he is faculty again, because "staff" can stay as long as they want, but faculty would have to be retired at age 65.
I feel bad for Dad. He has been enjoying his classes. Thanks to his Blogs and to the high-speed internet provided for by the seminary, he has been writing more and his intellect is no longer stagnant. I also feel bad for Mom. She has become very sweet and nice, and both have become healthier and happier. To thrust Dad back into the loop of ecclesiastical politics, where his writing would consist of dumbing down his sermons just so that his members wouldn't think he's elitist of boring, where Mom would, once again, feel the everday stress of living in a fishbowl—this is just too cruel. At their age, too!
We can't change things. It is unfortunate, but we can't change things. And I feel bad that I can't be there for them while they are going through all of this, since I am leaving the country. E-, in fact, has told me that I shouldn't bother about it anymore, since I will be away. But one cannot stop caring for one's family, if one truly loves them, just because one is a continent and an ocean away.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
UPDATE: Passport Application
I will have to definitely put my foot down concerning my application for next week. I was going to go yesterday, but that got derailed. I was preparing last night to go this morning but that, also, was derailed. My twin brother E- had been struggling to finish all his requirements in school so that he could graduate this March, but because he has been sick I went and helped him. I haven't had that much sleep for the past two nights just helping him, but finally (unless he has some hidden requirements I don't know about and which I have to help him with) all is done. And I can post.
As I was preparing my own requirements for the application of my Passport, I hit upon a snag. Up until now, I had assumed that the next step in getting my passport was to visit the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pasay City and submit my fully accomplished form with three 3.5 cm x 4.5 cm colored photographs of me wearing decent attire, white background, blah-blah... Well, as I was reading the fine print at the back of the form, I found this (I.E.3.) as a requirement before I even step foot inside DFA premises:
Another snag is that the DFA chose this time to change the format of their old application form into this new one. Arrrrrrrrrggggggggghh!!! My photos are pasted into my old one! I would now have to tear it off and accomplish the new one.
So, my schedule then for next week is to go to the CFO to attend the Guidance and Counseling seminar; I just hope that their schedule is still current (only way to find out is go there six hours early, like the way our Marriage counseling was done). Then try to go to the DFA and submit all my requirements. Then wait for V-'s package, then work on my VISA. It is all very stressful, but I would do all this just so I can hold my wife in my arms again. Now, all I have to do now is write down our "love story" (how, oh, how am I supposed to prevent myself from being unbearably and pathetically cheesy?).
As I was preparing my own requirements for the application of my Passport, I hit upon a snag. Up until now, I had assumed that the next step in getting my passport was to visit the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pasay City and submit my fully accomplished form with three 3.5 cm x 4.5 cm colored photographs of me wearing decent attire, white background, blah-blah... Well, as I was reading the fine print at the back of the form, I found this (I.E.3.) as a requirement before I even step foot inside DFA premises:
For fiancées and spouses of foreign nationalsOh, dear! I overlooked something! It isn't V-'s fault for not having told me (actually, it's nobody's fault but mine) that I needed to go get this before I apply for a passport. Even though V- isn't actually an Australian yet, she is a permanent resident there and, if I don't want to be caught up in a snafu, I would have to at least find out if I need this. And this has more requirements, like photographs, registration fees (arrrgggghh!) and all that again.
- Original and photocopy of Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) Guidance and Counseling Certificate of Attendance.
Another snag is that the DFA chose this time to change the format of their old application form into this new one. Arrrrrrrrrggggggggghh!!! My photos are pasted into my old one! I would now have to tear it off and accomplish the new one.
So, my schedule then for next week is to go to the CFO to attend the Guidance and Counseling seminar; I just hope that their schedule is still current (only way to find out is go there six hours early, like the way our Marriage counseling was done). Then try to go to the DFA and submit all my requirements. Then wait for V-'s package, then work on my VISA. It is all very stressful, but I would do all this just so I can hold my wife in my arms again. Now, all I have to do now is write down our "love story" (how, oh, how am I supposed to prevent myself from being unbearably and pathetically cheesy?).
Update on Passport Application
Okay, so I could only post just the shortest of posts using the phone. That last post was from my phone. I couldn't eMail anything longer than that. Sheeeesh! The complete post, as it should be had it all been sent, is as follows.
Well, I thot I wld be going 2 d DFA 2day, but I wasnt able 2. Ther r a lot of stuff w/c, if I had servants, I wldnt nid 2 do. Stuff lyk laundry, arranging my own stuff... u knw, that sort of thing. Plus d fact that m livng w/ my folks agen, so m busy again. Now, m also helpng Jrdn meet his last requirmnts. Y? Will discuss that latr. Sigh...
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Update on Passport Application
Well, I thot I wld be going 2 d DFA 2day, but I wasnt able 2. Ther r a lot of st
Okay, Blogging with the Palm was over-rated
When I first created this Blog, it was because my Palm device had the capability to write posts for publishing later. That is, I write in on the Palm device and then, when I connect it later to the PC, it would upload and publish it.
The disadvantages and the inconveniences came almost immediately. For one thing, I can write one, and absolutely only one post on the Palm before it becomes useless for further "posting". Another thing is that, if I have to connect the Palm to the PC to hotsync and, therefore, upload my post, why shouldn't I just type my post once I am online. Why use the Palm anyway.
That's the real reason why this Blog has been relatively empty. Most of the "keeping up" with the marriage plans were done via eMail.
Still, the lure of true mobile posting was just out of reach, still tantalizing me to find a way. When my wife bought me a new cell phone just before we got married (we got married January, she bought me the new phone December), I found that it could send eMail. I remembered that one can "post" by sending it via eMail to this Blog, and though the idea played with me for this past two months, I have only been able to really work it out now. Finally, I can just SMS eMail my post to this Blog.
The prime disadvantage of this is that I cannot make really long posts. But that's all right, as long as I can make posts. If, for instance, I can SMS just the idea I may want to further develop later, then I would be happy.
That explains all the "test" posts all over the place.
The disadvantages and the inconveniences came almost immediately. For one thing, I can write one, and absolutely only one post on the Palm before it becomes useless for further "posting". Another thing is that, if I have to connect the Palm to the PC to hotsync and, therefore, upload my post, why shouldn't I just type my post once I am online. Why use the Palm anyway.
That's the real reason why this Blog has been relatively empty. Most of the "keeping up" with the marriage plans were done via eMail.
Still, the lure of true mobile posting was just out of reach, still tantalizing me to find a way. When my wife bought me a new cell phone just before we got married (we got married January, she bought me the new phone December), I found that it could send eMail. I remembered that one can "post" by sending it via eMail to this Blog, and though the idea played with me for this past two months, I have only been able to really work it out now. Finally, I can just SMS eMail my post to this Blog.
The prime disadvantage of this is that I cannot make really long posts. But that's all right, as long as I can make posts. If, for instance, I can SMS just the idea I may want to further develop later, then I would be happy.
That explains all the "test" posts all over the place.
A Test Post for the Yahoo! Group
Just checking to see if my Blog posts automatically get sent to those on my mailing list.
Fwd: Blog: A Test
This is from Google Mail.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: gryphon_hall@my.smart.com.ph
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 01:52:17 +0800
Subject: Blog: A Test
To: Gryphon.Hall@gmail.com
From SMART?
--
forged in
Gryphon Hall
(google branch)
Just A Test
Publishing to Blog via eMail.
forged inGryphon Hall
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Wedding Photos
I have unsuccessfully tried to find a free digital photo host that offers a lot of space, would allow me to upload my high resolution (high fidelity to all the old-timers out there) digital pictures of our wedding and allow me (or anyone else who wants to) to download the same hi-res (short for high resolution) pictures to have them printed at home or at the digital services section of Kodak, Kameraworld, etc.
Anyway, I have been unsuccessful; so I settled for the next best thing: Yahoo! Photos. It allows me unlimited storage space for my digital pictures, allows me to upload my hi-res photos and store it as hi-res digital photos (very important), but will not allow anyone to download the pictures as hi-res, instead as medium resolution. That is, unless I pay them monthly for that special service.
The good news is that if you use their tool to print it out to your inkjet printer, you can print it out in it's high-resolution glory. So, really, it isn't such a bad deal.
I currently have fourteen (14) albums available
Now, if any of you wish to see it, please click the phrase "Post a comment" just below and write your name, eMail address (very important) and the album(s) you wish to view. If you have a Yahoo! ID or a Yahoo! eMail account, then all you have to do is visit this link: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/gryphon_hall/my_photos. If not, then I would have to invite you manually by email. Please be patient, and I will eMail to you the invitation to view the album(s) that you chose as soon as I can.
Anyway, I have been unsuccessful; so I settled for the next best thing: Yahoo! Photos. It allows me unlimited storage space for my digital pictures, allows me to upload my hi-res photos and store it as hi-res digital photos (very important), but will not allow anyone to download the pictures as hi-res, instead as medium resolution. That is, unless I pay them monthly for that special service.
The good news is that if you use their tool to print it out to your inkjet printer, you can print it out in it's high-resolution glory. So, really, it isn't such a bad deal.
I currently have fourteen (14) albums available
- Special Coffee Table Book Album (created by our official photographer)
- Wedding Preparations
- Pre-ceremony Gathering
- The Bride Cometh
- Wedding Ceremony 1 (Greeting, Proclamation of the Banns, Declaration of Intention)
- Wedding Ceremony 2 (Unity Candle Ceremony)
- Wedding Ceremony 3 (Presentation of the Bible and Scripture Reading, Responses of the Family and the Congregation)
- Wedding Ceremony 4 (Homily, Exchange of Vows, Blessing and Exchange of Rings)
- Wedding Ceremony 5 (Signing of the Marriage Certificate, The Congregation's response, Prayer of Consecration)
- Wedding Ceremony 6 (Presentation of the Bride and Groom, the Holy Kiss, and Pictorials)
- Wedding Reception 1
- Wedding Reception 2
- Flowers
- Godparent Commemorative Postcards
Now, if any of you wish to see it, please click the phrase "Post a comment" just below and write your name, eMail address (very important) and the album(s) you wish to view. If you have a Yahoo! ID or a Yahoo! eMail account, then all you have to do is visit this link: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/gryphon_hall/my_photos. If not, then I would have to invite you manually by email. Please be patient, and I will eMail to you the invitation to view the album(s) that you chose as soon as I can.
Monday, February 21, 2005
A Rant on Love
"Why are there so many forbidden relationships?" When a friend of mine asked this over dinner recently, I must confess that I had misunderstood her. I thought she was questioning why so many relationships are forbidden or why so many were forbidden at all. What she was actually questioning was why so many were entering in relationships that were clearly forbidden. Ah...
She had been discussing how her best friend had recently and unfortunately fallen in-love with a "non-Christian", a fact which has upset her and prompted her to ask why such forbidden relationships exist.
This was, for me, quite ironic since my wife had been in a similar situation with her, our friend, some years before, when she took up with somebody who, though not exactly a "non-Christian" but was definitely a bad one.
Here, I feel I must digress a little bit and qualify my terms. Most of my friends refer to people like Roman Catholics, Christian Cultists, and the rather bad sort of persons who happen to go to Protestant demonination churches as "Non-Christian", when actually that term should be applied to people who are merely not Christian: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., regardless of whether they are nice or not. C.S. Lewis, I think, once stated the same thing about how people make the word "Christian" merely an adjective to describe how nice or good a person is, so a person who is not nice or who is bad is therefore not a Christian or is non-Christian.
So that bad boyfriend M- had for years was therefore not a Christian to most of my friends. It is this misconception (though understandable but still an unfortunate misconception) that has given rise to other misconceptions. But I think I have digressed enough.
Anyway, here I was, immersed in all the irony. I would have thought that, after such a messy breakup (relatively speaking, of course, knowing her), she would have some better insights as to why Christian females make the wrong choices in love. I was disappointed, however, that although she is more forgiving and more open to females doing "stupid" things, she herself still had the mindset that brought even she to the sort of impasse that she now deplores her best friend as being in.
For one thing, and this is a direct consequence of the misunderstanding with the term "Christian", I have the impression that she thinks that if only her friend would spend more time in church, she would not have chosen wrongly. She told me months before all this that she had been unhappy with her bestfriend not being as "active" in church as she previously had, and although she did not directly tell me that her bf being "less Christian" is the reason why her bf is currently in-love with the wrong man, she had the same look and tone as when she said so before. Okay, so it may be speculation, but I am quite sure that this part of the speculation is close to the truth.
What is not speculation, however, is that she, like a lot of her "kind" from SVCF, just have the wrong idea about love. I am not claiming to be an expert in love, but sometimes a rank amateur, for instance a child, can point out that even the emperor has no clothes on. For instance, immediately after her breakup last year, I told her (in what I thought was a good-natured way) that I hoped that she would still find true love. I was surprised when she said that she already has. What the-? She has just broken up and now there's someone else? But even as she said those words, I already had a sinking suspicion, and so I was not surprised this time when she said that the true love she was talking about was God's love.
I cannot tell you how much I despise those who, with faux wisdom and a misplaced faith, would disseminate that notion which has become the source of so much unacknowledged happiness amongst the females I knew. And for a while I did despise M- for thinking this way, but more so that small clique of women who more ardently promote it; I had thought that M- had somehow changed her view on this, since she thought it was okay to get a boyfriend and all. But this!
On the surface, it seems very good theology: the love of God should satisfy all desires. Right? And on the basis of that premise... assumption... presumption females (and not a few males) are told that to romantically want them of the opposite sex is somehow less glorified and less blessed. This is, of course, the Roman Catholic view which, though it professes that marriage is one of the sacraments still considers that sacrament to cause their priests to sin. So, my "batch" was told that wanting a girlfriend or a boyfriend was not only not important but also not urgent. "Delight yourselves in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart," they preach, misquoting and misrepresenting scripture.
As a result, plenty of "my batch" pursued other endeavors, completely circumventing those unimportant "matters of the heart" then, years later, finding themselves alone and that part of them empty, a part God never intended would be empty, and then finding that most of those who would have been good mates either taken or irretrievably lost, they do that which another part of false theology (that whatever happens, good or bad, God actively wills to happen) justifies them to do: go after the wrong person.
Is it really unbiblical to suggest that God's love just isn't sufficient? Yes, and here's the proof: long before the fall when creation was rejoicing in its perfection and man was made in God's image, the only thing that was not good was that man did not have his own kind to be company. Oh, there were friends surrounding man, all the prelapsarian beasts and, of course, God in all his splendour and glory. But, for some reason, man needed a mate. If God's love had been sufficient then for this particular need for companionship, then there wouldn't be any females. There wouldn't have been any need God, of course, knew better. "And so a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves with his wife," right? This need and desire became even more acute after the fall, as a result of the fall.
But these "remnant" (as we have come to call them) have so controverted it that they would lay hold of unsuspecting youngsters and tell them otherwise, calling celibacy a "gift", just like prophecy or glossolalia (though, by and large, they have cheerfully ignore their own little advice and gotten boyfriends of their own). M- for a while, preached a tamer version of this, but changed when she got paired with P-. And even now, though she pays lip service to the notion that celibacy may not be a "gift" but rather a "choice", she still feels confused as to why females, i.e. her best friend, would say that they can "live without any man" and then go out and pick precisely the wrong sort of man. I, on the other hand, find it presumptious for females, including her (dear though she is to me), to go about saying that they can remain single their entire lives without needing any man. I will get back to this shortly.
H-, her best friend, I have been, unfortunately, expecting that she would fall for just the wrong sort of man; though when I talk about "wrong" I am talking about someone who is either a non-Christian or a nominal one—if the guy hadn't been "nice" in some way, I really doubt if H- would have fallen for him. Just because H- is a non-Christian doesn't mean that he isn't a great guy. It's just that, especially for a Christian, there are more things that make up a relationship than just being cool with a guy. In fact, we SV Guys have been calling this particular phenomena the "Curse of the SV Females", that they would fall for an obviously nice guy, sometimes a good father and husband (not always) and love them with all their hearts, but after the wedding would rarely go to church or, if they do, would be nominal (at best) or hypocritical (at worst); and their children suffer. I should know, since I know some teenagers now who are children of an SV Female gone, well, I don't know how to describe it, and they are going about doubting not only our denomination but the entire Christian religion as well. So, the SV female "happy" with her man, but had forgone much better happiness and familial well-being in not only the emotional/psychological sense but also the spritual sense. I am not speculating here. I am talking statistics. Most of the SV Ates I know who have married non-Christians or nominal Christians or Roman Christians rarely, if ever, come to church or even talk about spiritual matters anymore. I know them. On the other hand, there are those SV Ates who have given SV Guys or other Christian men a chance early in their stay at UP who are beaming mothers (though not trouble free) and active in their church and ministry.
Now, going back to the dangerous presumption, when they convince themselves that their well-being and esteem is not tied to some man (I could just remember the lectures of two particular "elder sisters" who were proponents of this; one was unceremoniously dumped by her long-time boyfriend for "some reason" and the other is now connected with someone younger than she). All in all, this notion, this presumption is delusion and by and large self-defeating. M- herself used to propose that it is φιλια (philia, that love between friends) that is the greatest love, that people can live without, and she used to imply that it is recommended to live without, ερος (eros, that love between man and woman). Anyway, she stopped saying that when she got hooked up with P-, but what I fear is that, now that P- is nothing but a jerk for all intents and purposes, she would go back to that belief. I guess that is why she was so hard hit by the "betrayal" of her best friend, if φιλια was the greatest love. Maybe that is why she is now saying that the one true love is αγαπη (agape, the love of God).
Well, that (in some part) I do not contest. The love of God is the greatest, but to say that it can fulfill a need that God which Himself saw could not is delusional. H- thought that she can handle it, and therefore gave no thought for it, which surprised her as a consequence, and she was unprepared. So was M- before, ερος just wasn't important enough to think through about, and so she once ended up with P-. Part of it, I believe, is the term itself, the root word for the English "erotic". Nowadays, "erotic" is seen by a lot of Christians as unworthy of a Christian's notice, as it is associated with the sordid kind of sex. Originally "eros" only meant "romantic love". Just because writers have hijacked the term "eros" and made it into something else doesn't mean that the love itself, that love between man and woman, is equally dirty and sordid. It isn't "lust". Nowadays, people use the term "making love" to describe sexual congress; it would be a poor world indeed if someday even the term "love" would be seen as dirty and sordid. The real term for lust or desire, by the way, is not ερος but επιθυμια (epithymia, lust/desire).
But, SV females, in the flower of their youth, are made to believe that 1) ερος is not worth thinking about or planning for (as you just let God's will happen), and 2) that the only worthy kinds of love are στοργη (that love between family members), φιλια, and αγαπη. They went through their entire college lives doing the "sensible thing" and repressing their natural God-given desires, then finding themselves later with a dwindling circle of friends that they start seeing rarely (so much for φιλια), and being acquainted with and being influenced more and more by their secular workmates and acquaintances, pulling them away from fellowship with believers and, in some instances, church altogether (so much for αγαπη).
There is something odd and disturbing about our society's values and priorities in this particular area. There is always taken for granted that nobody is too young to learn about a profession. As young as pre-school, we take them to firehouses, hospitals, office buildings, etc. in an effort to educate our young on the notion of finding and keeping a job. As early as we can, we teach them responsibility and discipline. We explain why Daddy (or Mommy) has to work, we teach them, if we can, the value of money and how to use it. Kids are rewarded if they show that they are enterprising, while we frown on those parents who, for some reason, wish to shield their children as long as possible from the world of economics. All this, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people who graduate from college do not end up with the profession they actually studied for; which is, of course, all right. I mean, it isn't immoral or anything to find out, eventually, what job one enjoys doing and get paid for at the same time.
But, for some reason, our youth is always informed about the way of love virtually at the last minute possible. I am not talking about sex education; that we get in abundance from both good and bad sources, factual or inaccurate. What I mean is the kind of education that answers the following question: 1) What is "being in-love" and how do I know if I am in-love? 2) What is infatuation and how do I know if I am merely infatuated? 3) What is the difference, if there is any? 4) What do I do, or how do I behave when I find that I am in love? 5) What do I do if I find it is just infatuation? 6) How far do I go, sexually, and not do anything immoral? You know, those questions.
As it is, most of our youth get their education on the way of love from TV and the movies, none of which I can observe say anything useful about the matter. It isn't the writers' or the producers' fault; stories that are interesting to watch must contain some conflict, and every good love story will have a some sort of conflict. So, even if the shows are good (and most of them are bad) our youth get a skewed vision of what the way of love is like: jealousy, love triangles, wrong choices, social blunders and faux pas, etc. It is like watching an adventure movie where your freeway is the scene of exciting car chases and horrific crashes, then going out and expecting real life to be like that. True, there are lots of good movies that show real love, but they are very rare and far between. No, if they are to get their education on love, they must get it elsewhere. The sensible and logical thing to say is, of course, from family and some sort of social organization.
But families rarely talk about these things even when they know what to talk about, and they often don't. Most families I know (thankfully, not mine) discourages such discussions. Bata ka pa! May gatas ka pa sa labi! but in the same breath... Matututo naman kayong sumikap at maghanap-buhay. Is there any wonder why our teenagers reach puberty knowing exactly what to do with their genitalia, but not knowing when it is proper to use them?
The importance of committment, for instance, is almost never discussed. The consensus amongst the youth, even amongst my Christian friends, is that committment is very fluid. Whenever anyone mentions committment in the context of before marriage (and in one memorable instance, committment after marriage), they usually come up with this doomsday scenario: Paano kung loko ang lalake? Paano kung kinakaliwa ka na? Paano kung sinasaktan ka na? Granted, these are instances of times when one stops committing; it's only logical.
But to use the "allowability" of dissolving committment as a reason to actually dissolve it when things become "uncomfortable"?
She had been discussing how her best friend had recently and unfortunately fallen in-love with a "non-Christian", a fact which has upset her and prompted her to ask why such forbidden relationships exist.
This was, for me, quite ironic since my wife had been in a similar situation with her, our friend, some years before, when she took up with somebody who, though not exactly a "non-Christian" but was definitely a bad one.
Here, I feel I must digress a little bit and qualify my terms. Most of my friends refer to people like Roman Catholics, Christian Cultists, and the rather bad sort of persons who happen to go to Protestant demonination churches as "Non-Christian", when actually that term should be applied to people who are merely not Christian: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., regardless of whether they are nice or not. C.S. Lewis, I think, once stated the same thing about how people make the word "Christian" merely an adjective to describe how nice or good a person is, so a person who is not nice or who is bad is therefore not a Christian or is non-Christian.
So that bad boyfriend M- had for years was therefore not a Christian to most of my friends. It is this misconception (though understandable but still an unfortunate misconception) that has given rise to other misconceptions. But I think I have digressed enough.
Anyway, here I was, immersed in all the irony. I would have thought that, after such a messy breakup (relatively speaking, of course, knowing her), she would have some better insights as to why Christian females make the wrong choices in love. I was disappointed, however, that although she is more forgiving and more open to females doing "stupid" things, she herself still had the mindset that brought even she to the sort of impasse that she now deplores her best friend as being in.
For one thing, and this is a direct consequence of the misunderstanding with the term "Christian", I have the impression that she thinks that if only her friend would spend more time in church, she would not have chosen wrongly. She told me months before all this that she had been unhappy with her bestfriend not being as "active" in church as she previously had, and although she did not directly tell me that her bf being "less Christian" is the reason why her bf is currently in-love with the wrong man, she had the same look and tone as when she said so before. Okay, so it may be speculation, but I am quite sure that this part of the speculation is close to the truth.
What is not speculation, however, is that she, like a lot of her "kind" from SVCF, just have the wrong idea about love. I am not claiming to be an expert in love, but sometimes a rank amateur, for instance a child, can point out that even the emperor has no clothes on. For instance, immediately after her breakup last year, I told her (in what I thought was a good-natured way) that I hoped that she would still find true love. I was surprised when she said that she already has. What the-? She has just broken up and now there's someone else? But even as she said those words, I already had a sinking suspicion, and so I was not surprised this time when she said that the true love she was talking about was God's love.
I cannot tell you how much I despise those who, with faux wisdom and a misplaced faith, would disseminate that notion which has become the source of so much unacknowledged happiness amongst the females I knew. And for a while I did despise M- for thinking this way, but more so that small clique of women who more ardently promote it; I had thought that M- had somehow changed her view on this, since she thought it was okay to get a boyfriend and all. But this!
On the surface, it seems very good theology: the love of God should satisfy all desires. Right? And on the basis of that premise... assumption... presumption females (and not a few males) are told that to romantically want them of the opposite sex is somehow less glorified and less blessed. This is, of course, the Roman Catholic view which, though it professes that marriage is one of the sacraments still considers that sacrament to cause their priests to sin. So, my "batch" was told that wanting a girlfriend or a boyfriend was not only not important but also not urgent. "Delight yourselves in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart," they preach, misquoting and misrepresenting scripture.
As a result, plenty of "my batch" pursued other endeavors, completely circumventing those unimportant "matters of the heart" then, years later, finding themselves alone and that part of them empty, a part God never intended would be empty, and then finding that most of those who would have been good mates either taken or irretrievably lost, they do that which another part of false theology (that whatever happens, good or bad, God actively wills to happen) justifies them to do: go after the wrong person.
Is it really unbiblical to suggest that God's love just isn't sufficient? Yes, and here's the proof: long before the fall when creation was rejoicing in its perfection and man was made in God's image, the only thing that was not good was that man did not have his own kind to be company. Oh, there were friends surrounding man, all the prelapsarian beasts and, of course, God in all his splendour and glory. But, for some reason, man needed a mate. If God's love had been sufficient then for this particular need for companionship, then there wouldn't be any females. There wouldn't have been any need God, of course, knew better. "And so a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves with his wife," right? This need and desire became even more acute after the fall, as a result of the fall.
But these "remnant" (as we have come to call them) have so controverted it that they would lay hold of unsuspecting youngsters and tell them otherwise, calling celibacy a "gift", just like prophecy or glossolalia (though, by and large, they have cheerfully ignore their own little advice and gotten boyfriends of their own). M- for a while, preached a tamer version of this, but changed when she got paired with P-. And even now, though she pays lip service to the notion that celibacy may not be a "gift" but rather a "choice", she still feels confused as to why females, i.e. her best friend, would say that they can "live without any man" and then go out and pick precisely the wrong sort of man. I, on the other hand, find it presumptious for females, including her (dear though she is to me), to go about saying that they can remain single their entire lives without needing any man. I will get back to this shortly.
H-, her best friend, I have been, unfortunately, expecting that she would fall for just the wrong sort of man; though when I talk about "wrong" I am talking about someone who is either a non-Christian or a nominal one—if the guy hadn't been "nice" in some way, I really doubt if H- would have fallen for him. Just because H- is a non-Christian doesn't mean that he isn't a great guy. It's just that, especially for a Christian, there are more things that make up a relationship than just being cool with a guy. In fact, we SV Guys have been calling this particular phenomena the "Curse of the SV Females", that they would fall for an obviously nice guy, sometimes a good father and husband (not always) and love them with all their hearts, but after the wedding would rarely go to church or, if they do, would be nominal (at best) or hypocritical (at worst); and their children suffer. I should know, since I know some teenagers now who are children of an SV Female gone, well, I don't know how to describe it, and they are going about doubting not only our denomination but the entire Christian religion as well. So, the SV female "happy" with her man, but had forgone much better happiness and familial well-being in not only the emotional/psychological sense but also the spritual sense. I am not speculating here. I am talking statistics. Most of the SV Ates I know who have married non-Christians or nominal Christians or Roman Christians rarely, if ever, come to church or even talk about spiritual matters anymore. I know them. On the other hand, there are those SV Ates who have given SV Guys or other Christian men a chance early in their stay at UP who are beaming mothers (though not trouble free) and active in their church and ministry.
Now, going back to the dangerous presumption, when they convince themselves that their well-being and esteem is not tied to some man (I could just remember the lectures of two particular "elder sisters" who were proponents of this; one was unceremoniously dumped by her long-time boyfriend for "some reason" and the other is now connected with someone younger than she). All in all, this notion, this presumption is delusion and by and large self-defeating. M- herself used to propose that it is φιλια (philia, that love between friends) that is the greatest love, that people can live without, and she used to imply that it is recommended to live without, ερος (eros, that love between man and woman). Anyway, she stopped saying that when she got hooked up with P-, but what I fear is that, now that P- is nothing but a jerk for all intents and purposes, she would go back to that belief. I guess that is why she was so hard hit by the "betrayal" of her best friend, if φιλια was the greatest love. Maybe that is why she is now saying that the one true love is αγαπη (agape, the love of God).
Well, that (in some part) I do not contest. The love of God is the greatest, but to say that it can fulfill a need that God which Himself saw could not is delusional. H- thought that she can handle it, and therefore gave no thought for it, which surprised her as a consequence, and she was unprepared. So was M- before, ερος just wasn't important enough to think through about, and so she once ended up with P-. Part of it, I believe, is the term itself, the root word for the English "erotic". Nowadays, "erotic" is seen by a lot of Christians as unworthy of a Christian's notice, as it is associated with the sordid kind of sex. Originally "eros" only meant "romantic love". Just because writers have hijacked the term "eros" and made it into something else doesn't mean that the love itself, that love between man and woman, is equally dirty and sordid. It isn't "lust". Nowadays, people use the term "making love" to describe sexual congress; it would be a poor world indeed if someday even the term "love" would be seen as dirty and sordid. The real term for lust or desire, by the way, is not ερος but επιθυμια (epithymia, lust/desire).
But, SV females, in the flower of their youth, are made to believe that 1) ερος is not worth thinking about or planning for (as you just let God's will happen), and 2) that the only worthy kinds of love are στοργη (that love between family members), φιλια, and αγαπη. They went through their entire college lives doing the "sensible thing" and repressing their natural God-given desires, then finding themselves later with a dwindling circle of friends that they start seeing rarely (so much for φιλια), and being acquainted with and being influenced more and more by their secular workmates and acquaintances, pulling them away from fellowship with believers and, in some instances, church altogether (so much for αγαπη).
I thought I could be able to finish that yesterday, but I wasn't able to. And so, I continue ...
There is something odd and disturbing about our society's values and priorities in this particular area. There is always taken for granted that nobody is too young to learn about a profession. As young as pre-school, we take them to firehouses, hospitals, office buildings, etc. in an effort to educate our young on the notion of finding and keeping a job. As early as we can, we teach them responsibility and discipline. We explain why Daddy (or Mommy) has to work, we teach them, if we can, the value of money and how to use it. Kids are rewarded if they show that they are enterprising, while we frown on those parents who, for some reason, wish to shield their children as long as possible from the world of economics. All this, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people who graduate from college do not end up with the profession they actually studied for; which is, of course, all right. I mean, it isn't immoral or anything to find out, eventually, what job one enjoys doing and get paid for at the same time.
But, for some reason, our youth is always informed about the way of love virtually at the last minute possible. I am not talking about sex education; that we get in abundance from both good and bad sources, factual or inaccurate. What I mean is the kind of education that answers the following question: 1) What is "being in-love" and how do I know if I am in-love? 2) What is infatuation and how do I know if I am merely infatuated? 3) What is the difference, if there is any? 4) What do I do, or how do I behave when I find that I am in love? 5) What do I do if I find it is just infatuation? 6) How far do I go, sexually, and not do anything immoral? You know, those questions.
As it is, most of our youth get their education on the way of love from TV and the movies, none of which I can observe say anything useful about the matter. It isn't the writers' or the producers' fault; stories that are interesting to watch must contain some conflict, and every good love story will have a some sort of conflict. So, even if the shows are good (and most of them are bad) our youth get a skewed vision of what the way of love is like: jealousy, love triangles, wrong choices, social blunders and faux pas, etc. It is like watching an adventure movie where your freeway is the scene of exciting car chases and horrific crashes, then going out and expecting real life to be like that. True, there are lots of good movies that show real love, but they are very rare and far between. No, if they are to get their education on love, they must get it elsewhere. The sensible and logical thing to say is, of course, from family and some sort of social organization.
But families rarely talk about these things even when they know what to talk about, and they often don't. Most families I know (thankfully, not mine) discourages such discussions. Bata ka pa! May gatas ka pa sa labi! but in the same breath... Matututo naman kayong sumikap at maghanap-buhay. Is there any wonder why our teenagers reach puberty knowing exactly what to do with their genitalia, but not knowing when it is proper to use them?
The importance of committment, for instance, is almost never discussed. The consensus amongst the youth, even amongst my Christian friends, is that committment is very fluid. Whenever anyone mentions committment in the context of before marriage (and in one memorable instance, committment after marriage), they usually come up with this doomsday scenario: Paano kung loko ang lalake? Paano kung kinakaliwa ka na? Paano kung sinasaktan ka na? Granted, these are instances of times when one stops committing; it's only logical.
But to use the "allowability" of dissolving committment as a reason to actually dissolve it when things become "uncomfortable"?
I kept on being interrupted as I wrote this, so my train of thought was also interrupted, with this lame ending as a consequence. However, I hope to be able to revise this someday into something readable because I think that these issues need to be discussed.
Friday, September 10, 2004
A Rant on Martial Arts Planet
(Actually, more of a wail of complaint)
This was intended to be posted on a the "Coming to god!" forum on the Philosophy section of Martial Arts Planet. After engaging in this kind of debate for some time, I now know why the Bible declares "And the fool said in his heart 'There is no God.'" For some reason, I thought that even Atheists would respect reason and logic, much more than some people with religion. Instead, I find that they can be as dogmatic and as close-minded as the worst of us. If people are to be truly honest, one cannot discount the fact that there is just too much phenomena that points to there being a God. This was my post, but you are welcome to wade through the entire agonizing thread of what is essentially "Christian baiting" (that is, if you can).
Read, especially, the reactions to my post. Mahirap dito is that kung napikon ka naman, talo ka instantly, pero kung napikon sila, panalo sila. So unfair. So biased. Kainis. And some of the Christians on the thread are just plain silly that it makes Christianity look silly. Mas kainis.
This was intended to be posted on a the "Coming to god!" forum on the Philosophy section of Martial Arts Planet. After engaging in this kind of debate for some time, I now know why the Bible declares "And the fool said in his heart 'There is no God.'" For some reason, I thought that even Atheists would respect reason and logic, much more than some people with religion. Instead, I find that they can be as dogmatic and as close-minded as the worst of us. If people are to be truly honest, one cannot discount the fact that there is just too much phenomena that points to there being a God. This was my post, but you are welcome to wade through the entire agonizing thread of what is essentially "Christian baiting" (that is, if you can).
Read, especially, the reactions to my post. Mahirap dito is that kung napikon ka naman, talo ka instantly, pero kung napikon sila, panalo sila. So unfair. So biased. Kainis. And some of the Christians on the thread are just plain silly that it makes Christianity look silly. Mas kainis.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
I'm running late!
It is the end of August, and my plans have been delayed for two months. I should be doing the following already:
- talk to the Godparents (only partly done)
- design and print the invitations
- finalize the contract for Photo and Video coverage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)