On our way to church a few weeks ago, an old woman approached me and my friend. It was obvious she was going to ask for something. Normally Iwould just walk away from strangers who would approach for fear that it might just be a modus operandi and I'd end up being victimized. Well, I heard stories. . . .
This time, I thought it was different so I stopped. For one, the woman was old, maybe in her 60s or 70s. Also, she didn't ask for money but for volunteers to come with her to the nearest Red Cross office. She needs a few bags of blood for her son who is in the hospital and in serious condition. "He needs immediate blood transfusion", the woman said. If there would be no volunteers, she needs to buy the blood herself for P800 per bag. The woman begged us to come with her and in between sobs she said she was willing to become our slave inorder to pay us. "Handa akong magpaalipin sa inyo mga anak" were her exact words. It broke my heart. She was crying and I couldn't help myself, I cried with her. I decided to help her. As I was getting ready to go with her to the Red Cross, I got a phone call, asking me where I was and that I was already late for a meeting. I remembered, yes, there was supposed to be a discipleship group meeting and I'm the facilitator. Darn, what do Ido? I considered just giving her the money so she can get the blood immediately. I have P2000; small amount compared to her son's life.
As my friend was buying food for the woman, (she fainted and she said she hasn't had breakfast), I called my friend who has a sister who works at the Red Cross. I asked her how we could help the woman, if there is any way to expedite things since this is a matter of emergency. I recounted the woman's story plus my plan to give her money. My friend warned me to be careful, to take it slowly, that the woman's story might be a fraud. She said she heard that same, exact story before. I couldn't believe it. That woman, if she's lying could win a best actress award. She could produce tears by the bucket!
Because of the warning, I took it slow. I told the woman that I just have a meeting that would go for one and a half hour. I would go directly to the red cross after the meeting. I asked for important details like her name and her son's, where to go if there are volunteers, and other details which she readily gave. I then gave her P100 so she could take a cab (she was planning to walk all the way to the RC).
When she left, I asked the guard to advertise the need for volunteers and gave him the details so that the volunteers can just go directly to the RC. We then analyzed what happened and realized that there were a lot of inconsistencies in the woman's story:
* She said her son was in serious condition, that he would die without the blood. If he is already confined, don't hospitals give patients immediate aid, like in this çase, the blood then ask the family to replace them later?
* If there is really a need for volunteers, isn't it easier to persuade your relatives to help instead of approaching strangers? Why didn't the woman go to those she knew first? Because the woman said she came straight from the hospital to us.
* When I told her to go ahead to Red Cross and then we wll follow after our meeting, suddenly she doesn't know where Red Cross is. We had to give her the directiona. Didn't she say she already went there? She was even quoted how much a bag of blood costs.
and a lot more that I couldn't remember now.
I remember saying then that it's okay if the woman was lying; that I'd prefer losing the P100 and shedding those tears than knowing that her son is dying and she can not even do something about it. One of the most painful things for a parent is to know your child is dying and you're helpless to do something about it. I was so sure then that if indeed the woman was lying, I would not feel bad.
Well, I was wrong! This morning, I had my second encounter with the woman. She's on another 'location' but has the same story. Yes, she still has the ability to produce tears within seconds.
I couldn't say I did not feel bad, because honestly, I did. I hate it that people capitalize on other people's emotions just to earn a few bucks. I don't like the alibis or the dramas they use (a dying son?!!!!).
Well, I may not like what they do but what can I say? I'm sure they have a very important motivation for doing what they're doing, I can just wish them better lives, I guess.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Apologetics
In our Apologetics class in GLC, we were asked to critique an article. This is what I submitted. . .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We always hear from our teachers questions such as: How can we detect a lie from the truth? How can we differentiate a fake from the original? How do we tell something is pure while another is not?
In all these questions, crucial is knowing the real thing. Knowledge of the truth prevents us from believing that which is untrue. Knowing what is true keeps us from deceptions and their consequences.
But what if a person has never heard the truth, thus the doctrine that he clings to is his only "truth"? What if the person's "truth" is inconsistent with the bible? What if the person is basing his belief on something other than the bible? What if that which he is basing his beliefs on tells him to do certain things contrary to the truth? Too many what ifs, but as I try to critique the article, I find myself asking these "what ifs".
In college, one of my favorite subjects was logic. As I read the article, this syllogism came to mind:
"If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it."
The first premise establishes a deity that has the capacity and power to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.
What does syllogism have to do with the article?
For one, the syllogism I mentioned above helps explain the article. To make a syllogism true, premises should not contradict each other. Accepting only one premise as truth means rejecting the other premise. In the above syllogism, each premise is exclusive because the validity of one nullifies the other. Though the article was not presented as syllogisms, in a way, the truth that the bible contains and the points indicated in the article can be viewed as contradicting premises in a syllogism.
These questions were posed at the beginning of the article then were answered as the article went along:
* How many times do we have to offer mass for the dead? The writer doesn't have any answer to this. According to him, this can only be answered if we are able to calculate how big the sins of the dead person is that still needs to be repaid and we have to know where that dead person is. And since this can not be determined, this question can not be answered.
* Who will go to heaven first, those who have received many masses or those who received only a few? To this question, the author said that the answer to this can not be determined as the persons we are offering the masses can either be already in heaven or in hell and can not be helped anymore.
* How do we know if a person is already in heaven? We will never know as God does not give this information.
To the question "Can mass help a person who has done so many evil things in his life?", the author didn't really give a straight answer. In fact, he said that people should not be judged as evil because they might have shown contrition before they died.
I take it to mean that the question is wrong in the first place.
Basing on the article, it seems that there are a lot of things that we can not know. It is like a hit- and- miss thing. It must be really tiring to believe these things as they give no assurance of anything at all.
Through the course of the article, the following ideas were pointed out:
* Mass has an eternal value, that one mass is enough to pay for all the sins of a person. However, we will never know how many masses a dead person needs for his salvation since we don't know where that person is and how big his sins that still need to be repaid.
* We can never know who among the dead that are being offered masses goes to heaven first because only God determines the effectiveness of the offered prayers. Since this is so, it is difficult to know the effect of the mass and how many are needed to save one soul in the purgatory.
* The grace we receive everytime we offer a prayer for the dead, if not applied to the dead, is given back to the church to be given to those in need.
* We really can not know whether a person is already in heaven or not as God does not give us this information.
I do not agree with the article because it directly opposes what the bible teaches. The entirety of the article discussed the issues of indulgencies, purgatory, and eucharist. The author's arguments were presented as he expounded on each point. With this, I will not repeat each point and rebuff but will attempt to address the whole article by focusing on the author's main points.
Although the author expounded on the issues of indulgencies, eucharist and purgatory, all the arguments he gave to support these stemmed from his belief on salvation. Clearly, he believes that a person can earn his salvation. He believes that there is still a way to transfer a person's destination even after he has died. He believes that there are three possible destinations after death: heaven and hell which are final or purgatory which is not final. The souls in the purgatory can go to heaven if they earn enough prayers for their salvation.
The bible says that upon death comes the judgment. While we are still alive, we can still make a choice on our destination but after death, that would already be too late. We can not do anything anymore to change our destination. The only chance we have in choosing is while we are still alive.
The bible also teaches that salvation is only through the blood of Christ. If we repent of our sins and believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and put our faith in Him as our only savior and lord, then we are saved. There is nothing we need to add to that anymore. We are transferred from our supposed-to-be destination which is hell to the life of eternity with Jesus in heaven. Salvation is God's free gift and we can only avail of it by grace through faith. This is Jesus' work and this is complete. We can only accept it or reject it and nothing else because what Jesus did on the cross is complete; it is a finished work. 1 Peter 3:18 says Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring us to God.
The bible does not support that mass can pay for all the sins of a person. What the bible says is that Jesus died on the cross for all our sins. Only Jesus is qualified to be the propitiation for all our sins because He is the only one who is blameless. The bible says there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Mass doesn't do anything at all for our salvation. People might sincerely believe that a mass can save people but they would just be sincerely wrong.
I really do not get how indulgencies can help save a person. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where is the sense of Jesus having to die on the cross if indeed we can earn our salvation? The bible says that "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21). A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Galatians 2:16).
Like I said earlier, the truths of the bible and the points articulated in the article are opposing premises in a syllogism. There is only one truth that we need to cling to and that is what the bible supports. We are blessed to hold the true end of it.
However, the "what ifs" I mentioned earlier still bother me.
What if a person has never heard the truth, thus the doctrine that he clings to is his only "truth"?
What if the person's "truth" is inconsistent with the bible?
What if the person is basing his belief on something other than the bible?
What if that which he is basing his belief tells him to do certain things contrary to the truth?
The author's points are understandably in error because he is a classic description or the subject of my "what ifs". I think the better question we need to raise now and the challenge for us is
KNOWING WHAT WE DO, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP A PERSON EMBRACE THE TRUTH FROM THE BIBLE?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We always hear from our teachers questions such as: How can we detect a lie from the truth? How can we differentiate a fake from the original? How do we tell something is pure while another is not?
In all these questions, crucial is knowing the real thing. Knowledge of the truth prevents us from believing that which is untrue. Knowing what is true keeps us from deceptions and their consequences.
But what if a person has never heard the truth, thus the doctrine that he clings to is his only "truth"? What if the person's "truth" is inconsistent with the bible? What if the person is basing his belief on something other than the bible? What if that which he is basing his beliefs on tells him to do certain things contrary to the truth? Too many what ifs, but as I try to critique the article, I find myself asking these "what ifs".
In college, one of my favorite subjects was logic. As I read the article, this syllogism came to mind:
"If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it."
The first premise establishes a deity that has the capacity and power to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.
What does syllogism have to do with the article?
For one, the syllogism I mentioned above helps explain the article. To make a syllogism true, premises should not contradict each other. Accepting only one premise as truth means rejecting the other premise. In the above syllogism, each premise is exclusive because the validity of one nullifies the other. Though the article was not presented as syllogisms, in a way, the truth that the bible contains and the points indicated in the article can be viewed as contradicting premises in a syllogism.
These questions were posed at the beginning of the article then were answered as the article went along:
* How many times do we have to offer mass for the dead? The writer doesn't have any answer to this. According to him, this can only be answered if we are able to calculate how big the sins of the dead person is that still needs to be repaid and we have to know where that dead person is. And since this can not be determined, this question can not be answered.
* Who will go to heaven first, those who have received many masses or those who received only a few? To this question, the author said that the answer to this can not be determined as the persons we are offering the masses can either be already in heaven or in hell and can not be helped anymore.
* How do we know if a person is already in heaven? We will never know as God does not give this information.
To the question "Can mass help a person who has done so many evil things in his life?", the author didn't really give a straight answer. In fact, he said that people should not be judged as evil because they might have shown contrition before they died.
I take it to mean that the question is wrong in the first place.
Basing on the article, it seems that there are a lot of things that we can not know. It is like a hit- and- miss thing. It must be really tiring to believe these things as they give no assurance of anything at all.
Through the course of the article, the following ideas were pointed out:
* Mass has an eternal value, that one mass is enough to pay for all the sins of a person. However, we will never know how many masses a dead person needs for his salvation since we don't know where that person is and how big his sins that still need to be repaid.
* We can never know who among the dead that are being offered masses goes to heaven first because only God determines the effectiveness of the offered prayers. Since this is so, it is difficult to know the effect of the mass and how many are needed to save one soul in the purgatory.
* The grace we receive everytime we offer a prayer for the dead, if not applied to the dead, is given back to the church to be given to those in need.
* We really can not know whether a person is already in heaven or not as God does not give us this information.
I do not agree with the article because it directly opposes what the bible teaches. The entirety of the article discussed the issues of indulgencies, purgatory, and eucharist. The author's arguments were presented as he expounded on each point. With this, I will not repeat each point and rebuff but will attempt to address the whole article by focusing on the author's main points.
Although the author expounded on the issues of indulgencies, eucharist and purgatory, all the arguments he gave to support these stemmed from his belief on salvation. Clearly, he believes that a person can earn his salvation. He believes that there is still a way to transfer a person's destination even after he has died. He believes that there are three possible destinations after death: heaven and hell which are final or purgatory which is not final. The souls in the purgatory can go to heaven if they earn enough prayers for their salvation.
The bible says that upon death comes the judgment. While we are still alive, we can still make a choice on our destination but after death, that would already be too late. We can not do anything anymore to change our destination. The only chance we have in choosing is while we are still alive.
The bible also teaches that salvation is only through the blood of Christ. If we repent of our sins and believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and put our faith in Him as our only savior and lord, then we are saved. There is nothing we need to add to that anymore. We are transferred from our supposed-to-be destination which is hell to the life of eternity with Jesus in heaven. Salvation is God's free gift and we can only avail of it by grace through faith. This is Jesus' work and this is complete. We can only accept it or reject it and nothing else because what Jesus did on the cross is complete; it is a finished work. 1 Peter 3:18 says Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring us to God.
The bible does not support that mass can pay for all the sins of a person. What the bible says is that Jesus died on the cross for all our sins. Only Jesus is qualified to be the propitiation for all our sins because He is the only one who is blameless. The bible says there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Mass doesn't do anything at all for our salvation. People might sincerely believe that a mass can save people but they would just be sincerely wrong.
I really do not get how indulgencies can help save a person. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where is the sense of Jesus having to die on the cross if indeed we can earn our salvation? The bible says that "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21). A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Galatians 2:16).
Like I said earlier, the truths of the bible and the points articulated in the article are opposing premises in a syllogism. There is only one truth that we need to cling to and that is what the bible supports. We are blessed to hold the true end of it.
However, the "what ifs" I mentioned earlier still bother me.
What if a person has never heard the truth, thus the doctrine that he clings to is his only "truth"?
What if the person's "truth" is inconsistent with the bible?
What if the person is basing his belief on something other than the bible?
What if that which he is basing his belief tells him to do certain things contrary to the truth?
The author's points are understandably in error because he is a classic description or the subject of my "what ifs". I think the better question we need to raise now and the challenge for us is
KNOWING WHAT WE DO, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP A PERSON EMBRACE THE TRUTH FROM THE BIBLE?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)