Monday, September 13, 2010
Ang kasaysayan ng Oton
Ang bayan ng Oton ay ang kauna-unahang pueblo sa Panay. Ang bayan na ito ay itinayo noong 1572 upang bigyang puri ang Inmaculada Conception bilang isang patron. Noong ika-labintatlong (13th) siglo, ang Oton ay produktibong lugar na pinanahanan ng mga malay na mangangalakal. Ang daungan nito na ngayon ay kilala sa tawag na Batiano Bridge ay isa sa limang pinakamatandang daungan ng mga malay na mangangalakal para sa pagpapalitan ng mga produkto sa irong-irong kasama ng sanglay o mga tsinong mangangalakal at karatig lugar na kinabibilangan ng Sugbu, Madiano at Malandog. Ang salitang Oton ay nanggaling sa salitang “OGTONG ADLAW”. Minsan may isang sundalong espanyol na nagtanong sa katutubo kung ano ang pangalan ng lugar na yaon. Dahil espanyol ang salitang ginamit hindi naintindihan ng katutubo ang nais na ipahiwatig ng sundalo sa kanya kaya sumagot agad ang katutubo na OGTONG ADLAW (noontime), ang akala niya siya ay tinatanong tungkol sa oras. Simula noon ang lugar ay kinilala na bilang Ogtong. Sa pagdaan ng maraming taon ito ay tinawag na Oton, alinsunod sa pinagmulan nitong Ogtong. Noong 1972, ang bayan na ito ay ginawang kapital ng probinsya ng Oton na binubuo ng Panay, Sibuyan, Guimaras, Romblon at kanlurang parte ng Negros.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Maghinampang sing may kasadya kag paghigugma…Dagtaw ta!
Ang pagdagyaw sa hinampang isa na ka tradisyon halin pa sang una sa seminaryo. Ang komunidad nagapartisipar gid sa sining hilikuton nga nagahatag sang tuman nga kalangkag kag kasadya sa bilog nga katapo sang komunidad. Ang pagpakig-ambit sang kada isa sa hinampang nagadugang sang duag kag kapag-on sa relasyon sang mga seminarista bilang mag-ululutod. Ang komunidad padayon sa pagpanglakaton kag nagadagyaw paagi sa paghimbun kag paghatag sang ila kaugalingon sa paghinampang. Ang tanan nga kabudlayan nagahaganhagan kung ang seminarista makapalapit sa lugar halampangan kag makapabutyag sang ila kaugalingon para sa tanan.
Maghinampang kita sing may kasadya kag paghigugma. Ang paghampang nagabulig sa aton sa pagdiskubre sang aton kaugalingon. Ang pagdagyaw sa hinampang isa ka tini-on sa pagpasalamat sa mahal nga Diyos bangud kay ini ti-on sang paghilinugyaw kag kasadyahan. Nga-a bala nagahinampang kita? Ang paghinampang sing may kalipay nagaimbitar sa aton sa paghatag sang bug-os nga kaugalingon nga wala sing pagpangduhaduha. Kung ang tanan malipay, makabatyag kita sang kasulhay kag paghaganhagan sa aton balatyagon. Indi naton manigar nga sa pormasyon aton naeksperyensyahan ang tuman kadamo nga kabudlayan kag palaligban. Apang ini tanan aton malimtan kung kita nagadagyaw sa paghinampang. Ang tagsa nga pagkadlaw sang miyembro sang FG ukon class nagahatag kabuhi kag bilang balus sa ila yuhom ginapakita man naton ang tumalagsahon nga yuhom nga nagahalin sa guya nga manayanaya. Kung kita nagahampang sing may kasadya malimtan naton ang pagdumot kag kaakig sa iban. Ining mga hibubun-ot gin-islan sang paghigugma kag pag-amuma halin sa grupo kag sa Diyos nga tagtuga. Ini nga pamatasan duna na sa mga seminarista. Ang paghinampang ginapatigayon indi tungod kay amo ini kinaandan naton nga hilikuton. Ang paghinampang nagabulig sa seminarista sa pagtubo kag paglambo sa pormasyon. Ang kada isa wala nagapaindis indis kay gusto nila magda-ug kundi ang kada seminarista nagahandum sa paghampang sing may paghigugma. Ang matuod-tuod nga kalipay aton malambot kung kita nagahigugma. Amo ini ang rason kung nga-a dapat tanan maghampang agud mabatyagan sang kada miyembro nga ang presensya sang isa tama gid ka importante kay sila kabahin sang grupo kag naga-unong sa tanan agud malambot ang kadalag-an sa paghinampang. Paghigugma ang nagatulod sa aton kung nga-a kita nagahampang. Ang aton kalipay indi matumbasan sang tropeyo nga aton maangkon. Ang matuod tuod nga padya nagahalin sa taguipossoon nga bunga sang paghigugma kag kalipay.
Ang paghigugma kag pagsinadya sa aton paghinampang amo ang duha ka bagay nga nagapapag-on sang aton relasyon. Ang komunidad padayon nga nagahimbon, nagahatag sang ila kaugalingon kag sincero nga partisipasyon. Ang aton pagdagyaw halad naton sa makaako. Ang aton kalipay, kasakit kag pagsakripsiyo ginapahaganhagan sa paghinampang nga halin sa taguiposoon. Itib-ong ang aton kadalag-an, maghinampang sing may kalipay, maghigugma sang husto kag magdayaw sing nagakaigo.
Maghinampang sing may kasadya kag paghigugma… Dagyaw ta!
Reynard Tubid
Lanubo
Maghinampang kita sing may kasadya kag paghigugma. Ang paghampang nagabulig sa aton sa pagdiskubre sang aton kaugalingon. Ang pagdagyaw sa hinampang isa ka tini-on sa pagpasalamat sa mahal nga Diyos bangud kay ini ti-on sang paghilinugyaw kag kasadyahan. Nga-a bala nagahinampang kita? Ang paghinampang sing may kalipay nagaimbitar sa aton sa paghatag sang bug-os nga kaugalingon nga wala sing pagpangduhaduha. Kung ang tanan malipay, makabatyag kita sang kasulhay kag paghaganhagan sa aton balatyagon. Indi naton manigar nga sa pormasyon aton naeksperyensyahan ang tuman kadamo nga kabudlayan kag palaligban. Apang ini tanan aton malimtan kung kita nagadagyaw sa paghinampang. Ang tagsa nga pagkadlaw sang miyembro sang FG ukon class nagahatag kabuhi kag bilang balus sa ila yuhom ginapakita man naton ang tumalagsahon nga yuhom nga nagahalin sa guya nga manayanaya. Kung kita nagahampang sing may kasadya malimtan naton ang pagdumot kag kaakig sa iban. Ining mga hibubun-ot gin-islan sang paghigugma kag pag-amuma halin sa grupo kag sa Diyos nga tagtuga. Ini nga pamatasan duna na sa mga seminarista. Ang paghinampang ginapatigayon indi tungod kay amo ini kinaandan naton nga hilikuton. Ang paghinampang nagabulig sa seminarista sa pagtubo kag paglambo sa pormasyon. Ang kada isa wala nagapaindis indis kay gusto nila magda-ug kundi ang kada seminarista nagahandum sa paghampang sing may paghigugma. Ang matuod-tuod nga kalipay aton malambot kung kita nagahigugma. Amo ini ang rason kung nga-a dapat tanan maghampang agud mabatyagan sang kada miyembro nga ang presensya sang isa tama gid ka importante kay sila kabahin sang grupo kag naga-unong sa tanan agud malambot ang kadalag-an sa paghinampang. Paghigugma ang nagatulod sa aton kung nga-a kita nagahampang. Ang aton kalipay indi matumbasan sang tropeyo nga aton maangkon. Ang matuod tuod nga padya nagahalin sa taguipossoon nga bunga sang paghigugma kag kalipay.
Ang paghigugma kag pagsinadya sa aton paghinampang amo ang duha ka bagay nga nagapapag-on sang aton relasyon. Ang komunidad padayon nga nagahimbon, nagahatag sang ila kaugalingon kag sincero nga partisipasyon. Ang aton pagdagyaw halad naton sa makaako. Ang aton kalipay, kasakit kag pagsakripsiyo ginapahaganhagan sa paghinampang nga halin sa taguiposoon. Itib-ong ang aton kadalag-an, maghinampang sing may kalipay, maghigugma sang husto kag magdayaw sing nagakaigo.
Maghinampang sing may kasadya kag paghigugma… Dagyaw ta!
Reynard Tubid
Lanubo
The conditions of life in the garden
by: Reynard O. Tubid
In order to complete the creation of God, He puts the first human being in the garden to work and to guard it. Along with the existence of man in the garden, God has given him the prohibition as a part of his task. God said; you can eat any of the trees in the garden but not of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2: 16-17). According to Jean Louis Ska and with that of the exegetes, the tree which was mentioned by God to the first human being is associated with the meaning of the prohibition itself and the knowledge of good and evil. With all the trees in the garden, there are two special trees that must be taken seriously; the tree of life which is the wisdom motif and the second tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There are several propositions based on Jean’s explanation regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil. First, it has an existential implication. Both evil and good do have useful and harmful meaning. They have the capacity of discerning for what is harmful. Second, the ethical meaning, it is related on the question of what is morally good and what is morally evil. They are both equal in moral senses. Thus, the knowledge of good and evil would be the capacity of discerning what is useful and what is harmful, in order to choose the good and avoid the evil. Third, it has a sexual meaning. The snake has a common fertility symbol. It represents nakedness that is related to sexuality and hassled into the discovery of sexual maturity. The first couple is aware of their nakedness, their shameful dishonor in rebelling against God, their helplessness before the just God. These creatures trying to be like the creator on their own terms and finally realizes their shameful act and felt their naked human nature. The man has now become like one of us making himself judge of good and evil (Gen. 3:22). Finally, it exemplifies the sense of totality. Good and evil are understood to be a merism; the knowledge of everything. The merism is divided into four important points. First, only God knows what is good and evil. Second, the discernment of what is good and evil is indispensable. Deuteronomy 30:15-20 is very clear in this respect since it says that Israel must choose good and not evil. This would be impossible if Israel could not know what is good and evil. Third, discernment is the characteristic of adulthood. Lastly, it is dangerous and harmful to confuse good and evil (Is. 5, 20). God forbids man to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It means that the first human cannot treat this tree like all other tress around the garden, because the fruit is not just a simple fruit that can be consumed like all other fruits in the garden. It should not be an object of human desire and appetite. Adam’s sin is one of rebellion against God; Adam eats despite God’s telling him: you shall not eat. Adam’s sin consists in wanting to have wisdom which does not come from God. Adam’s sin is the effect of his disobedience and expulsion to the will of God. Man lacks the freedom of responsibility to respond to the prohibition of God, in contrary he does the other way around in order to acquire what God has. According to Jean Louis Ska, in human life, it is possible to act without the knowledge of good and evil, which is more than simple moral discernment. Many texts confirm that this knowledge includes not only the intellectual faculty of distinguishing in an abstract way what is morally good from what is morally evil, but also the ability of finding means to accomplish what is good and avoid what is evil.
In trying to relate the important events from the passage found in the book of genesis, especially focusing on the prohibition of God as the condition of life in the Garden with my experiences, I come to know the difference of good and evil. It helps me to compare possibilities of looking things in the realm of good and its benefits and from the side of the evil which results into deception and chaos. These two qualities of life are my preferences to do the right thing and to distinguish the uniqueness of the two. The more I perform good things the freer I become; there is no absolute freedom except in the service of what is good and evil. In my life as a seminarian, I always look at freedom as to do what I desire. My desire brings me to satisfaction and fulfillment of my pleasures and wants. But as I deepen myself as to what freedom really means, I arrive in the realization that it is not the right to say and do anything. An absolute freedom means to do good and to avoid evil doings. In the formation there are things that I want to do outside the schedule but instead of doing it I prefer to be in the community rather than fulfilling my selfish desires. This decision of mine measures my self-control. It enables me to set my priorities accordingly without compromising any schedule especially when it involves community activity. Freedom is not a private possession but a share freedom with others in the community. In my part, as I decide I do not make it a habit of making decisions for the sake of decision making. But I equate my idea of decision making to something that requires resound judgment. I called it discernment. It is the discovering of the will of God for me. It is an effort to decide what is the most noble and responsible thing to do. In doing this I make it sure that the grace of God and the value it contained are both present within in me and it is working accordingly. This is needed in order to choose the right action that is the way the Spirit is leading me. This is also another way of recognizing of what God is asking of me and how I respond freely to the situations. It is rooted in human awareness and made in a morally good decision. In order to achieve a correct decision, I must examine the feelings and the judgment I make. I have to become more aware of what’s going on inside me. By knowing this, I could reflect on my inner disposition motivating me to judge acceptably and make moral choices pleasing to the thing I ought to do. The fall of our first parents into sin is the concrete illustration of owning what belongs to God. The first man and his wife were tempted by the serpent and had fall right away because they wanted to be independent from the will of God. They do not listen to God, for they want also to acquire the all- knowing nature of God. God has given them freedom but they do not use it in the right way. They are not contented with this level, they prefer to be equal or even more in the level of God. When I am morally equipped with my decisions, I know how to obey. Obedience is my freedom to follow what has been commanded to me. Nevertheless, it must be clear to me that I am doing the work not for my own will alone but there must be a guidance of the divine in order not to fall into self gratification. Obedience is done while the person remains in the grace of God. Indi lang ko dapat magpati sa kon ano ang hambalon sang iban. Bisan sin-o pa siya kung ang iya thoughts wala naangot gihapon sa kamatuoran kag sa ikaayo sang kadam-an indi man ko magpati sa iya gihapon. I’d rather die defending my side for the truth and clarity than to experience death without even knowing the simple things I’ve done because I have just obeyed the person in authority. Obedience is to die for oneself, dying in the will of God.
The present situation of the world joins in this particular fall of man and the improper use of freedom. I know as human beings in this world, we have our own freedom. It depends upon us how to value and to use it. But the world today, do not consider these things. Instead of using the freedom to fulfill what God wants them to do; they give more attention to their earthly desires and pleasures. There are circumstances wherein they’ve neglected the presence and guidance of God in doing their respective tasks and obligations. As long as it sustains them in doing their tasks and it is pleasurable, for them that’s the ultimate good. The world and the people around them failed to pattern their decisions in accordance to the will of God. They become like God also in their own way trying to divert the real essence of the world. There is a great and alarming transition in the process of their decision making. The world today considered good as something that is egocentric. The center of everything is the self alone and not the community. Evil becomes the counterpart of the good. When they find pleasure in evil and it satisfies them, they considered it as the ultimate good. They are pleasure oriented persons attached in the allurements of the world. The coal fired power plant is the concrete example of a self-centered project. The proponents of this project secured their future by obtaining a big amount of money as compensation to their support without looking on the welfare of those who will be affected and the destruction of the beauty of the creation of God. The coal fired power plant will ruin not only the life of the people but the creation of God as a whole. The world is starting to move away from God. Their rebellious acts of doing things improperly are not the ways of God but their ways. Maybe in the end when God’s wrath comes they’ll realize that they’re wrong. God will always be the summit and the fountain of existence. Everything goes back to Him. In conclusion, the account from the book of genesis focusing on the conditions of God together with the supporting details and truth would like to stress the following points:
1. In every decision, God must be the point of reference and the sole guidance to achieve the ultimate good.
2. Sin comes into the world, not from God but from man and freely.
3. Obedience to the will of God, by following his commands and once he sets prohibitions, it must be followed with reverence and total designation of will.
4. The conditions of life in the Garden of Eden and the faults of our first parents vividly shows the reality that the sins they have committed may not be repeated again. We know God in His goodness is merciful but once His mercy is abused, God becomes cruel in order to correct the sinful men, and returns to doing good again.
It was the love of God to our first parents that he did not let them suffer too much. Even God banished them outside the paradise; he still clothed them, as a sign of his unending mercy and love. We too on our part may realize the goodness of God and to value it by not committing the same sin again and again. When we do things out of love, we come to recognize the feelings inside us. All we have to do is to listen, understand, feel and experience God in silence and solitude and let him speak and guide us to perform the summum bonum for ourselves and for others. A good moral judgment tells one how to support other people, directly or indirectly, and what is good for a person is basically what keeps him alive and what makes his life worth living to himself, which is his own self-fulfillment.
Sources:
Jean Louis Ska, S.J. Creation and Salvation, pg. 34-36.
Rev. Fr. Efren Rivera, O.P. New American Bible. St. Paul’s Publication, Makati, Philippines, 1990.
In order to complete the creation of God, He puts the first human being in the garden to work and to guard it. Along with the existence of man in the garden, God has given him the prohibition as a part of his task. God said; you can eat any of the trees in the garden but not of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2: 16-17). According to Jean Louis Ska and with that of the exegetes, the tree which was mentioned by God to the first human being is associated with the meaning of the prohibition itself and the knowledge of good and evil. With all the trees in the garden, there are two special trees that must be taken seriously; the tree of life which is the wisdom motif and the second tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There are several propositions based on Jean’s explanation regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil. First, it has an existential implication. Both evil and good do have useful and harmful meaning. They have the capacity of discerning for what is harmful. Second, the ethical meaning, it is related on the question of what is morally good and what is morally evil. They are both equal in moral senses. Thus, the knowledge of good and evil would be the capacity of discerning what is useful and what is harmful, in order to choose the good and avoid the evil. Third, it has a sexual meaning. The snake has a common fertility symbol. It represents nakedness that is related to sexuality and hassled into the discovery of sexual maturity. The first couple is aware of their nakedness, their shameful dishonor in rebelling against God, their helplessness before the just God. These creatures trying to be like the creator on their own terms and finally realizes their shameful act and felt their naked human nature. The man has now become like one of us making himself judge of good and evil (Gen. 3:22). Finally, it exemplifies the sense of totality. Good and evil are understood to be a merism; the knowledge of everything. The merism is divided into four important points. First, only God knows what is good and evil. Second, the discernment of what is good and evil is indispensable. Deuteronomy 30:15-20 is very clear in this respect since it says that Israel must choose good and not evil. This would be impossible if Israel could not know what is good and evil. Third, discernment is the characteristic of adulthood. Lastly, it is dangerous and harmful to confuse good and evil (Is. 5, 20). God forbids man to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It means that the first human cannot treat this tree like all other tress around the garden, because the fruit is not just a simple fruit that can be consumed like all other fruits in the garden. It should not be an object of human desire and appetite. Adam’s sin is one of rebellion against God; Adam eats despite God’s telling him: you shall not eat. Adam’s sin consists in wanting to have wisdom which does not come from God. Adam’s sin is the effect of his disobedience and expulsion to the will of God. Man lacks the freedom of responsibility to respond to the prohibition of God, in contrary he does the other way around in order to acquire what God has. According to Jean Louis Ska, in human life, it is possible to act without the knowledge of good and evil, which is more than simple moral discernment. Many texts confirm that this knowledge includes not only the intellectual faculty of distinguishing in an abstract way what is morally good from what is morally evil, but also the ability of finding means to accomplish what is good and avoid what is evil.
In trying to relate the important events from the passage found in the book of genesis, especially focusing on the prohibition of God as the condition of life in the Garden with my experiences, I come to know the difference of good and evil. It helps me to compare possibilities of looking things in the realm of good and its benefits and from the side of the evil which results into deception and chaos. These two qualities of life are my preferences to do the right thing and to distinguish the uniqueness of the two. The more I perform good things the freer I become; there is no absolute freedom except in the service of what is good and evil. In my life as a seminarian, I always look at freedom as to do what I desire. My desire brings me to satisfaction and fulfillment of my pleasures and wants. But as I deepen myself as to what freedom really means, I arrive in the realization that it is not the right to say and do anything. An absolute freedom means to do good and to avoid evil doings. In the formation there are things that I want to do outside the schedule but instead of doing it I prefer to be in the community rather than fulfilling my selfish desires. This decision of mine measures my self-control. It enables me to set my priorities accordingly without compromising any schedule especially when it involves community activity. Freedom is not a private possession but a share freedom with others in the community. In my part, as I decide I do not make it a habit of making decisions for the sake of decision making. But I equate my idea of decision making to something that requires resound judgment. I called it discernment. It is the discovering of the will of God for me. It is an effort to decide what is the most noble and responsible thing to do. In doing this I make it sure that the grace of God and the value it contained are both present within in me and it is working accordingly. This is needed in order to choose the right action that is the way the Spirit is leading me. This is also another way of recognizing of what God is asking of me and how I respond freely to the situations. It is rooted in human awareness and made in a morally good decision. In order to achieve a correct decision, I must examine the feelings and the judgment I make. I have to become more aware of what’s going on inside me. By knowing this, I could reflect on my inner disposition motivating me to judge acceptably and make moral choices pleasing to the thing I ought to do. The fall of our first parents into sin is the concrete illustration of owning what belongs to God. The first man and his wife were tempted by the serpent and had fall right away because they wanted to be independent from the will of God. They do not listen to God, for they want also to acquire the all- knowing nature of God. God has given them freedom but they do not use it in the right way. They are not contented with this level, they prefer to be equal or even more in the level of God. When I am morally equipped with my decisions, I know how to obey. Obedience is my freedom to follow what has been commanded to me. Nevertheless, it must be clear to me that I am doing the work not for my own will alone but there must be a guidance of the divine in order not to fall into self gratification. Obedience is done while the person remains in the grace of God. Indi lang ko dapat magpati sa kon ano ang hambalon sang iban. Bisan sin-o pa siya kung ang iya thoughts wala naangot gihapon sa kamatuoran kag sa ikaayo sang kadam-an indi man ko magpati sa iya gihapon. I’d rather die defending my side for the truth and clarity than to experience death without even knowing the simple things I’ve done because I have just obeyed the person in authority. Obedience is to die for oneself, dying in the will of God.
The present situation of the world joins in this particular fall of man and the improper use of freedom. I know as human beings in this world, we have our own freedom. It depends upon us how to value and to use it. But the world today, do not consider these things. Instead of using the freedom to fulfill what God wants them to do; they give more attention to their earthly desires and pleasures. There are circumstances wherein they’ve neglected the presence and guidance of God in doing their respective tasks and obligations. As long as it sustains them in doing their tasks and it is pleasurable, for them that’s the ultimate good. The world and the people around them failed to pattern their decisions in accordance to the will of God. They become like God also in their own way trying to divert the real essence of the world. There is a great and alarming transition in the process of their decision making. The world today considered good as something that is egocentric. The center of everything is the self alone and not the community. Evil becomes the counterpart of the good. When they find pleasure in evil and it satisfies them, they considered it as the ultimate good. They are pleasure oriented persons attached in the allurements of the world. The coal fired power plant is the concrete example of a self-centered project. The proponents of this project secured their future by obtaining a big amount of money as compensation to their support without looking on the welfare of those who will be affected and the destruction of the beauty of the creation of God. The coal fired power plant will ruin not only the life of the people but the creation of God as a whole. The world is starting to move away from God. Their rebellious acts of doing things improperly are not the ways of God but their ways. Maybe in the end when God’s wrath comes they’ll realize that they’re wrong. God will always be the summit and the fountain of existence. Everything goes back to Him. In conclusion, the account from the book of genesis focusing on the conditions of God together with the supporting details and truth would like to stress the following points:
1. In every decision, God must be the point of reference and the sole guidance to achieve the ultimate good.
2. Sin comes into the world, not from God but from man and freely.
3. Obedience to the will of God, by following his commands and once he sets prohibitions, it must be followed with reverence and total designation of will.
4. The conditions of life in the Garden of Eden and the faults of our first parents vividly shows the reality that the sins they have committed may not be repeated again. We know God in His goodness is merciful but once His mercy is abused, God becomes cruel in order to correct the sinful men, and returns to doing good again.
It was the love of God to our first parents that he did not let them suffer too much. Even God banished them outside the paradise; he still clothed them, as a sign of his unending mercy and love. We too on our part may realize the goodness of God and to value it by not committing the same sin again and again. When we do things out of love, we come to recognize the feelings inside us. All we have to do is to listen, understand, feel and experience God in silence and solitude and let him speak and guide us to perform the summum bonum for ourselves and for others. A good moral judgment tells one how to support other people, directly or indirectly, and what is good for a person is basically what keeps him alive and what makes his life worth living to himself, which is his own self-fulfillment.
Sources:
Jean Louis Ska, S.J. Creation and Salvation, pg. 34-36.
Rev. Fr. Efren Rivera, O.P. New American Bible. St. Paul’s Publication, Makati, Philippines, 1990.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Apology of Plato
“Not much time will be gained, O Athenians,
in return for the evil name which you will get
from the detractors of the city, who will say
that you killed Socrates, a wise man….”
----- Socrates, Apology
Digression: Socrates’ Mission to Athens
The accusers of Socrates could not testify that he took pay or asked for money. The poverty he has was a witness to the truth of what he said. To defend the simple truth, one needs to oppose to the unjust and illegal things occurring in the city. He who intends to fight for what is right must live privately rather than publicly. This is to avoid accusations among the members of the community living in a public society. Deeds speak louder than words. The fear of death will not be the source of giving way to any man contrary to what is right, even if Socrates will be destroyed for it. To do something in order to stop the wrong accusations, it must be shown, not by words but by deeds. Socrates acted in public life following the manner of good man worthy man to be respected. He has shown his whole self in the public through discussion. He never asked for payment, he entertained everybody whether rich or poor, he even offered himself as questionnaire. Socrates firmly assured that those who listen to him tell the truth for it is he who does it first. Those who helped Socrates have been corrupted. The reason of support was that they know Meletus was lying and not telling the truth.
Peroration
Socrates does not want to be like those accused men who do nothing but beg and plead for their lives. The judge must not grant justice as a favor but to render judgment according to the law. Socrates committed the care to God and to the accusers to judge him in whatever way will be best for him and also for others.
“Gentlemen of Athens, it does not seem to me just to beg a judge, or to be acquitted by begging; it is rather just to teach and to persuade. The judge does not sit to grant justice as a favor, but to render judgment.”
The Counter penalty
To give up means giving part of my soul.
Socrates proposed an alternative means in order to redeem himself from the accusation. He was not like other Athenians who offered something in order to be acquitted in their case. In the last part of his appeal, he asked if a mina of silver can be used as counter penalty since he could not give the exact amount that the judges required him to pay.
The juries were to open to all available men who will convict the accused, and surely Meletus and his friends’ cohorts in order to see clearly the conviction they long for. Socrates was astonished by the vote of 280-220 for conviction. So far, this was the huge vote anyone would have expected. In order for Socrates to be forgiven he must go out of his way stick it to Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. If he does it, surely the forgiveness he longed for will be granted. In this phase, the convicted is given the opportunity to argue his own side. Knowing himself to be innocent of the charges, he insolently suggests strong sentences to demonstrate the truth and his contempt at the entire proceeding. His words create irreverence to the jurors own understanding and somehow leads Socrates to feel how angry he could make them.
Exile is another option Socrates brings up he patiently explains to the jurors that he is cast out, he will keep on asking questions and he will not going to keep quiet, for keeping quite means he admitted it freely. The core of everything Socrates would like to express runs in the statement, an unexamined life is not worth living. To examine him is his passion and obsession. This, perhaps, more than any divine influence, is the main motivation for his questioning.
Epilogue
Socrates did not regret for having conducted by the defense. He would rather die with the defense than to live with other people. Neither in court of law or any man continue to escape death by any means possible. Often in a battle it becomes clear that man escape death by surrendering, but for Socrates it was difficult to escape wickedness, for wickedness runs faster than death. Socrates advised them not to lament, for he does not fear the prospect of death. It is either going to be an endless sleep of journey to another place.
“Very likely what has fallen to me is good, and those among us who think that death is an evil are wrong. There had been convincing indication of this. For the accustomed sign would surely have opposed me, if I were not in some way acting for good.”
For Socrates death was good. Death was one of two things. Either to be dead is not to exist, to have no awareness at all, or it is, as the stories tell, a kind of alteration, a change of abode for the soul from this place to another. Socrates believed that to die and be released was better. In the same reason he was not angry with the accusers, or to his condemners; they have done no harm, although neither of them does him any good; and for this he may gently blame them. In the end, Socrates takes his words seriously to the heart and does not label anyone evil. All of them play an important role. They act according to their characters. To die is something not to be feared of.
in return for the evil name which you will get
from the detractors of the city, who will say
that you killed Socrates, a wise man….”
----- Socrates, Apology
Digression: Socrates’ Mission to Athens
The accusers of Socrates could not testify that he took pay or asked for money. The poverty he has was a witness to the truth of what he said. To defend the simple truth, one needs to oppose to the unjust and illegal things occurring in the city. He who intends to fight for what is right must live privately rather than publicly. This is to avoid accusations among the members of the community living in a public society. Deeds speak louder than words. The fear of death will not be the source of giving way to any man contrary to what is right, even if Socrates will be destroyed for it. To do something in order to stop the wrong accusations, it must be shown, not by words but by deeds. Socrates acted in public life following the manner of good man worthy man to be respected. He has shown his whole self in the public through discussion. He never asked for payment, he entertained everybody whether rich or poor, he even offered himself as questionnaire. Socrates firmly assured that those who listen to him tell the truth for it is he who does it first. Those who helped Socrates have been corrupted. The reason of support was that they know Meletus was lying and not telling the truth.
Peroration
Socrates does not want to be like those accused men who do nothing but beg and plead for their lives. The judge must not grant justice as a favor but to render judgment according to the law. Socrates committed the care to God and to the accusers to judge him in whatever way will be best for him and also for others.
“Gentlemen of Athens, it does not seem to me just to beg a judge, or to be acquitted by begging; it is rather just to teach and to persuade. The judge does not sit to grant justice as a favor, but to render judgment.”
The Counter penalty
To give up means giving part of my soul.
Socrates proposed an alternative means in order to redeem himself from the accusation. He was not like other Athenians who offered something in order to be acquitted in their case. In the last part of his appeal, he asked if a mina of silver can be used as counter penalty since he could not give the exact amount that the judges required him to pay.
The juries were to open to all available men who will convict the accused, and surely Meletus and his friends’ cohorts in order to see clearly the conviction they long for. Socrates was astonished by the vote of 280-220 for conviction. So far, this was the huge vote anyone would have expected. In order for Socrates to be forgiven he must go out of his way stick it to Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. If he does it, surely the forgiveness he longed for will be granted. In this phase, the convicted is given the opportunity to argue his own side. Knowing himself to be innocent of the charges, he insolently suggests strong sentences to demonstrate the truth and his contempt at the entire proceeding. His words create irreverence to the jurors own understanding and somehow leads Socrates to feel how angry he could make them.
Exile is another option Socrates brings up he patiently explains to the jurors that he is cast out, he will keep on asking questions and he will not going to keep quiet, for keeping quite means he admitted it freely. The core of everything Socrates would like to express runs in the statement, an unexamined life is not worth living. To examine him is his passion and obsession. This, perhaps, more than any divine influence, is the main motivation for his questioning.
Epilogue
Socrates did not regret for having conducted by the defense. He would rather die with the defense than to live with other people. Neither in court of law or any man continue to escape death by any means possible. Often in a battle it becomes clear that man escape death by surrendering, but for Socrates it was difficult to escape wickedness, for wickedness runs faster than death. Socrates advised them not to lament, for he does not fear the prospect of death. It is either going to be an endless sleep of journey to another place.
“Very likely what has fallen to me is good, and those among us who think that death is an evil are wrong. There had been convincing indication of this. For the accustomed sign would surely have opposed me, if I were not in some way acting for good.”
For Socrates death was good. Death was one of two things. Either to be dead is not to exist, to have no awareness at all, or it is, as the stories tell, a kind of alteration, a change of abode for the soul from this place to another. Socrates believed that to die and be released was better. In the same reason he was not angry with the accusers, or to his condemners; they have done no harm, although neither of them does him any good; and for this he may gently blame them. In the end, Socrates takes his words seriously to the heart and does not label anyone evil. All of them play an important role. They act according to their characters. To die is something not to be feared of.
“Dual Identity”
According to Frege, sense and reference are two different aspects of the meaning of at least some kinds of terms. A term reference (Bedeutung) is the object it refers to and its sense (Sinn) is the way in which it refers to that object. In my life as a seminarian, I always have my associations of the things around me. Sometimes this may not refer only on the things that are directly observed but it encompasses also the way I shaped my paradigm looking through the reality I perceived about. Prior to my existence in the seminary, I always believe in the principle; what I perceive I believe and what I believe I live. Oftentimes I have the tendency of owning the concreteness of the things according to my biases and personal understanding. There were even times wherein I did not mind others point of views, as long as I believe that everything that has passed my standards are true and firm. My paradigm is always precise. External factors are just there but they do not have their purpose. I failed to broaden the way I comprehend things and situations. I limit only myself in the particular sphere of my mind set without going outside my being and trying to go beyond with what is supposed to be. But when I entered the seminary and was able to grasp about the things around me, everything has changed. Paradigm entails the person’s pattern of thinking and the way it embraces the identity that was given to him. This identity is used in order to have a preference of the way things are lived according to its very purpose and meaning.
When I was still in the second year high school I have this paradigm of owning a “dual identity”. Usually, when I arrived late for school my teacher would command me to throw the trash cans in the compost pit near the school vicinity which is called “bubog”, a word derived from the tree which blossoms with the flowers that are so bad in smell. It was 3 weeks already that I repeatedly threw the trash can with the same reason. When my classmates noticed it they asked me, “Are you the king of bubog”? I replied, why? We often see you at the bubog tree. With this conception my name started to change. They called me “buga”. During that time I was very angry when they approached me using that identity. But later on, I realized it doesn’t make any sense if I continue to be high tempered, so, I decided to recognize what they labeled me and I used it as my school identification name. Anyway I am having fun with it. “Buga” has been a well- known name to my classmates but our teachers doesn’t know it. During that time, I was campaigning for student council. Of course, I am using my real name since the voters will come from the lower years. They knew me better if I used this name. With my real name placed on the sets of officers, I was known by them (lower years) with respect and valor. But, when I am inside the classroom I’m using the name “buga” and when going outside together with the lower years and some of my batch mates I preferred to use Reynard. One time, my youngest brother visited me at my classroom. He inquired inside if I am still around because he will join me in going home. My brother said, ara si manong Reynard? My classmate replied, yes dali lang tawgon ko anay si“buga”. My brother was a bit confused about it. He doesn’t know that “buga” and “Reynard” are one and the same person. He just discovered it later on. What he comprehends was that the name “buga” in the classroom and the “Reynard” he knew is true. When he first heard the word “buga” he became hesitant but when I went out and presented myself to him, he was consciously informed. With this reality, proper names are not just labels, Frege attempted to resolve the problem by distinguishing between sense and reference of a proper name. According to this distinction, proper names may have the same reference, or refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways of presenting the object. Thus, the difference between “Reynard is buga and Reynard is Reynard results from the fact that in the imagined situation Reynard and buga have the same reference but different senses; these proper names refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways (as the “Reynard” for the student council and “buga” for throwing the trash), and so have different senses. According to Frege this difference in sense accounts for the difference in informative content between two sentences. Frege in this particular notion seems to hold a form of the so called description theory of proper names- the theory that proper names, like definite description, refer to objects through their descriptive or informative content. Even until now, my identity remains as what it is just like before. My paradigm becomes a model of my identity. My dual identity causes a memorable manifestation to me. Even in the seminary I was given also with the “bansag”. Instead of getting mad at it, I just enjoy, anyway everything goes. It shapes the way I think and has developed my paradigm to become flexible in looking life’s perspective with extended horizons. I thought everything I knew were true. Even my identity changes me the way I handle things in the long run.
By:Reynard Tubid
When I was still in the second year high school I have this paradigm of owning a “dual identity”. Usually, when I arrived late for school my teacher would command me to throw the trash cans in the compost pit near the school vicinity which is called “bubog”, a word derived from the tree which blossoms with the flowers that are so bad in smell. It was 3 weeks already that I repeatedly threw the trash can with the same reason. When my classmates noticed it they asked me, “Are you the king of bubog”? I replied, why? We often see you at the bubog tree. With this conception my name started to change. They called me “buga”. During that time I was very angry when they approached me using that identity. But later on, I realized it doesn’t make any sense if I continue to be high tempered, so, I decided to recognize what they labeled me and I used it as my school identification name. Anyway I am having fun with it. “Buga” has been a well- known name to my classmates but our teachers doesn’t know it. During that time, I was campaigning for student council. Of course, I am using my real name since the voters will come from the lower years. They knew me better if I used this name. With my real name placed on the sets of officers, I was known by them (lower years) with respect and valor. But, when I am inside the classroom I’m using the name “buga” and when going outside together with the lower years and some of my batch mates I preferred to use Reynard. One time, my youngest brother visited me at my classroom. He inquired inside if I am still around because he will join me in going home. My brother said, ara si manong Reynard? My classmate replied, yes dali lang tawgon ko anay si“buga”. My brother was a bit confused about it. He doesn’t know that “buga” and “Reynard” are one and the same person. He just discovered it later on. What he comprehends was that the name “buga” in the classroom and the “Reynard” he knew is true. When he first heard the word “buga” he became hesitant but when I went out and presented myself to him, he was consciously informed. With this reality, proper names are not just labels, Frege attempted to resolve the problem by distinguishing between sense and reference of a proper name. According to this distinction, proper names may have the same reference, or refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways of presenting the object. Thus, the difference between “Reynard is buga and Reynard is Reynard results from the fact that in the imagined situation Reynard and buga have the same reference but different senses; these proper names refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways (as the “Reynard” for the student council and “buga” for throwing the trash), and so have different senses. According to Frege this difference in sense accounts for the difference in informative content between two sentences. Frege in this particular notion seems to hold a form of the so called description theory of proper names- the theory that proper names, like definite description, refer to objects through their descriptive or informative content. Even until now, my identity remains as what it is just like before. My paradigm becomes a model of my identity. My dual identity causes a memorable manifestation to me. Even in the seminary I was given also with the “bansag”. Instead of getting mad at it, I just enjoy, anyway everything goes. It shapes the way I think and has developed my paradigm to become flexible in looking life’s perspective with extended horizons. I thought everything I knew were true. Even my identity changes me the way I handle things in the long run.
By:Reynard Tubid
Who is God for Humans?
The mystery of God’s existence is so deep and unexplainable. Even man in the search of truth could not fathom the reason why God does the thing in a particular circumstance. Only God knows what should be and what should not be. When man gives argument through reason, still he could not contain God in his limited and finite knowledge. The movie dogma has something to bring to the avid viewers. It is not only about religion; it has something to do also with the understanding of man about the existence and the nature of God. In order to make it clear, I would like to explain three substantial points to support the things to be taken seriously in the movie. First, it has to focus on the battle between the entity of God as omniscience and the free will of man. If God is all-knowing and he knows what my decision is going to be, where is my free will? God has a vision that is broadly open and can see everything in entirety. He can see all things. I could not hide the stupid things I did for He knows the reason of my actions. He sees me in my decision making. By the mere fact that God knows everything about me, eventually everything comes into existence by that very fact. God’s wisdom precedes the existence of a thing or even an entity. When final judgment comes and when my decisions are becoming final, God will judge me according to what I did when I’m still alive. Man has free will since God does not intervene in their decisions. Since God is omniscience and his knowledge is supreme, man could not change His decisions. Therefore, man’s free will is limited because God intrudes in the identity and decisions of man. If a man has limited free will, it is not anymore free will but its essence stands only on the will that is controlled and monitored by the Supreme Being.
Second, God is perceived in diverse view. When Bethany called up her mother regarding the problem she has; the only reply she received was “God has a plan.” Bethany felt angry and disappointed for the advice of her mother. With this statement, Bethany questions that if God has a plan what about her plans? In other words, the mother of Bethany describes the cause in the way that she describes the effect. Since God knows everything, he was often placed in the idea that he plans for the good. But Bethany complains the other way around. Therefore, He was not a perfect God. God has his own plan because He is the cause of the destiny for man. But it is not only the case that causes literally resembles their effects. When her mother vividly uttered the plan of God for Bethany. How sure she was in saying this? Is the plan of God the same with that of Bethany? Of course not! As for that, the positive view about God can be grounded in the fact if God plans; he has presumably caused the decision to be right. When we form positive statements about God, we must somehow mean what we say. We must mean that God is what we assert him to be. But do we really mean what we are saying or we just based it according to our own understanding? The word plan can be applied to two things without meaning the same thing at all. God has a plan. There is an enormous difference between God and Bethany, the same term as plan cannot be applied to God and to creatures univocally. God has a plan! Her mother said. This word for God is not confined to the meaning of the word but goes beyond it. Hence, it is clear that the word plan is not used in the same sense of God and human beings, and the same is true of all other words, so they cannot be used univocally of God and human. The mother of Bethany may not know God’s plan, but she still insisted about God’s nature through His plan. She was saying it without being clear as to what exactly she was saying. In order to speak meaningfully about God, it is not necessary that one should understand exactly the significance of one’s statement about Him. God is incomprehensible. But it does not impede us to use words significantly and ask for more questions.
Lastly, the movie depicted the faith of the people, especially with that of Bethany. There were times that she wanted to abandon God because of His reverse plan. This reality brings regrets and frustrations about the nature of God. Sometimes, we could say, does God care for us? If he does, how? If he does not why? Our faith is so confusing because God confuses us. We could no longer determine if He is real or not in our experience. Faith becomes a true faith if God is present in the life of the person. But faith can become false belief also even if God is in our midst. How can we determine if God resides in the faith we believe? How does He manifest Himself? Faith is sometimes defined through reason and at times reason becomes confusing. Who knows, what we believe is not a true doxa but a belief out of human wishful thinking. Only god knows everything, man has only limited knowledge and understanding about God. Dogma calls us to examine our own lives and the things we believe. God wants us to follow Him, not because the pope or the bishop has told us to. The church does not define who we are in our relationship to God.
By: Reynard Tubid
Second, God is perceived in diverse view. When Bethany called up her mother regarding the problem she has; the only reply she received was “God has a plan.” Bethany felt angry and disappointed for the advice of her mother. With this statement, Bethany questions that if God has a plan what about her plans? In other words, the mother of Bethany describes the cause in the way that she describes the effect. Since God knows everything, he was often placed in the idea that he plans for the good. But Bethany complains the other way around. Therefore, He was not a perfect God. God has his own plan because He is the cause of the destiny for man. But it is not only the case that causes literally resembles their effects. When her mother vividly uttered the plan of God for Bethany. How sure she was in saying this? Is the plan of God the same with that of Bethany? Of course not! As for that, the positive view about God can be grounded in the fact if God plans; he has presumably caused the decision to be right. When we form positive statements about God, we must somehow mean what we say. We must mean that God is what we assert him to be. But do we really mean what we are saying or we just based it according to our own understanding? The word plan can be applied to two things without meaning the same thing at all. God has a plan. There is an enormous difference between God and Bethany, the same term as plan cannot be applied to God and to creatures univocally. God has a plan! Her mother said. This word for God is not confined to the meaning of the word but goes beyond it. Hence, it is clear that the word plan is not used in the same sense of God and human beings, and the same is true of all other words, so they cannot be used univocally of God and human. The mother of Bethany may not know God’s plan, but she still insisted about God’s nature through His plan. She was saying it without being clear as to what exactly she was saying. In order to speak meaningfully about God, it is not necessary that one should understand exactly the significance of one’s statement about Him. God is incomprehensible. But it does not impede us to use words significantly and ask for more questions.
Lastly, the movie depicted the faith of the people, especially with that of Bethany. There were times that she wanted to abandon God because of His reverse plan. This reality brings regrets and frustrations about the nature of God. Sometimes, we could say, does God care for us? If he does, how? If he does not why? Our faith is so confusing because God confuses us. We could no longer determine if He is real or not in our experience. Faith becomes a true faith if God is present in the life of the person. But faith can become false belief also even if God is in our midst. How can we determine if God resides in the faith we believe? How does He manifest Himself? Faith is sometimes defined through reason and at times reason becomes confusing. Who knows, what we believe is not a true doxa but a belief out of human wishful thinking. Only god knows everything, man has only limited knowledge and understanding about God. Dogma calls us to examine our own lives and the things we believe. God wants us to follow Him, not because the pope or the bishop has told us to. The church does not define who we are in our relationship to God.
By: Reynard Tubid
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Seminary Formation
Seminary formation is a kind of formation wherein an individual commits himself and take his share. The seminary is not just a place of formation. Above all, it is a venue for growth and total fulfillment in one’s life. As the seminarian takes the initial step towards the fulfillment of his dream, he needs a lot of struggles and sufferings. This chaos in his formation will prepare him to become strong later on. The formation he has is a preparation for greater waves to face and challenging puzzle to solve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)