I was once a Marcos Apologist!

By: Mr. Joven M. Jalbuna

The attempt of some to revise and distort the history has something to do with indoctrination. Such should not be treated lightly. It is much worse than mind-conditioning and brainwashing. Disclaimer: This narrative is not intended to convince anyone, but to tell you of my story.

I have known one (Marcos Apologist) whom I've learned all the stories revolving Marcos and his glorified achievements. Back then, I still had no idea about fact-checking or verifying the stories he was telling me. All I did was listening and absorbing. The stories was so inspiring and convincing. I was always in awe of the greatness and saintliness of Marcos in his stories, while his enemies were all evil and filibustero of the Philippine Government. What makes me admire Marcos all the more was the myth and conspiracy of his tons of gold or treasures. Right after listening and absorbing it, I, myself, so uncritical, became an apologist of Marcos.

Things has started to change when I entered the Seminary. Everytime my professors were talking or discussing about the evils of Martial Law, I became resistant believing that they are just anti-Marcos, wishing for the downfall of BBM. I both vocally and silently continued and fought my belief. I cannot accept hearing unpleasant things about Marcos. I even applied the doctrine of forgiveness to assert the soundness of my belief that if God can forgive, why can't we? As well as the aphorism, the sins of the father cannot be inherited by the son. And there was also a time when I hated the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church for being biased and partial in their stories.

I became audacious with my stance. What's worst, the stories I believed about Marcos has also made me a symphatizer and follower of Duterte since his campaign period up to a few years of his presidency. The reason was simple, Duterte and Marcos has resemblance in their style of leadership - fierce and kinda reckless. Which I believed as effecive in imposing change and bringing the nation to greatness.

Yet as time passes on, tired of defending him, I started to doubt the stories I once accepted and embraced. This process which I undergone was painful and uneasy - letting go of something I treated as the whole truth. It took a long time. First it put me in a state where I still partially believed those stories at the same time I partially believed those I've read in history books. Then, little by little, I checked the veracity of the ill-stories about the enemies of Marcos, as well as the horrors of Martial Law. I also drowned myself with all the facts and evidences about the collective testimonies of the victims of ML. From then on, I no longer a Marcos and Duterte Apologist. I was like immersed and wandering in the deep of lies and conspiracies. The result of my quest for truth led me to revisit the cause and the rationale why the Catholic Church was/is against their (Duterte/Marcos) rule (not in their persons but their human rights violations and the way they patronize violence and even murder), as well as the motives of the opposition to regain and preserve democracy.

It was 2018 when I started constructively criticizing some of the policies of the current administration through writing. And talking about Martial Law and how Marcos stayed in power, it is now so clear to me. Not just the sequence of events, but also the motives of Marcos and allies. First, only through Martial Law he could extend his presidency, eventually revise the constitution to allow him to run again, not to mention the proofs and facts how he orchestrate/manipulate the election process. Second, the total casualties of Martial Law and the corruption were just so massive to be compensated or be covered up with huge infrastructure projects and economic gains.

True enough, I will be grossly ungrateful if I would not acknowledge the good contributions of Marcos. It is true and factual. But, it will never be a logical cover up to the lives compromised in the process.

My response about forgiving the Marcoses and move on is this, that is so much to ask from the victims and the Filipino people. Forgiveness will only take place if the Marcoses themselves would show or express remorse about what FEM did. Moving on is easy but forgetting is not. Total healing won't occur if the injury will not be forgotten. Once there's no healing, the victims will always clamor for justice.

While on the sins of the father cannot be inherited by the son, yes that may be true. However the sins were not only committed by the father but by the whole family and all their symphatizers. Who benefited the corrupted money? And Imelda, BBM and Imee were already aware of the condition of the country back then yet refused to intervene and tolerated all, while enjoying the luxuries of life.

Lastly, all must be aware of the moral principle of the Catholic Church - it will always fight for the sanctity of life regardless of your identity or sins. That is why, anybody, it may be politician, who will advocate and patronize violence and murder, the Church will hinder in his way.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." This aphorism is based from the histories of the past of so many countries who were too foolished in committing same mistakes over and over again. It is okay to commit mistakes, but it is foolishness to keep repeating the same mistake. Such saying does not intend to condemn the Marcos family, but it is to remind the Filipino people, so long as the Marcoses won't make a public apology and make amends of their sins, until such, they should not be allowed to be back in power.

The bottom line of this narrative is simple. When you encounter a Marcos or Duterte Apologist, please know that they undergone a long process of indoctrination, thus made them firm and hard to believe in facts and evidences. In reverse, any standard references you will use to invalidate their myths, they will treat it as fake news, lies and partial or bias. But it is not enough reason to be discourage, be patient when educating them. For I know, so long as there is education, they will eventually have a change of heart.

ANG PULONG MAO ANG DIYOS (John 1:1)

Ni: Bro. Joven M. Jalbuna

Sa dili pa nato hatagan ug insaktong pangatarungan ang nakasulat sa Juan 1:1, duna laman akoy pipila ka mga pulong nga kinahanglan ipasabot aron hapsay ang pagpresentar ko sa pagnegar sa panudlo sa Iglesia ni Cristo nga may kalambigitan sa pagka Diyos ni Jesus.

 

Atong hibaloan nga ang paghubad sa teksto sa Bibliya dunay pipila ka mga pamaagi ug techniques ug dili kay pinasagad ra sama sa pagbasa niini ug paghubad pinasubay sa kinaugalingon. Ang una sa pinaka komon na gamiton mao ang literal na paghubad o litra por litra. Ang paghubad sa teksto dapat pinasubay sa lintunganay nga kahulugan sa pulong ug dili ang mabulaklak o mahulagwayon nga kapareha niini sama sa mga idioms o retorika. Apan dili usab nato hikalimtan nga kini inubanan sa pagsabot sa konteksto pinasubay sa kahimtang sa panahon kung kanus-a kini masulat ug sa katuyuan sa tagsulat. Ug mas makahatag pa gayod ug mas insaktong interpretation kung kita makaila sa tagsulat pinaagi sa pagtuon sa iyang kagikan ug sa iyahang stilo sa pagsulat.

 

Ang ikaduha mao ang paghubad binase sa pamatasan nga kun diin ang katuyuan mao ang pagkat-on sa leksyong moral nga gipaabot sa teksto. Magamit kini kalagmitan sa mga pasumbingay diha sa Bibliya.

 

Ang ikatulo mao ang paghubad allegorico o paghubad sa teksto pinaagi sa pagtumbok sa nakatagong kahulugan niini. Ang pulong allegory inila kini gumikan kay Plato, usa ka pilosopo sa karaang panahon nga kun diin iyang gipasabot pinaagi niini nga ang mga tawo wala masayod sa kamatuoran hangtod kung sila makahibalo nga naa diay sila sa kweba, og ang kanunay nilang giila nga matuod or realidad mao lamang kadtong ilahang mga anino sa ilang atubangan gumikan sa kahayag nga miigo sa ilahang likod gikan sa gawas sa kweba, og dili ang tinuod gayod na realidad kun mugawas sila sa kweba.

 

Ang ikaupat na paagi mao ang mistikanhong paghubad o paghubad anagogico nga kun diin sabton ang teksto pinasubay sa mga umalabot nga panghitabo o tagna. Kini kalagmitan gamiton sa mga teksto o libro sa Bibliya nga naghisgot ug mga panagna sama sa mga sulat sa mga propeta.

 

Kinahanglan nato nga tagaan ug dakong pagtagad kining mga aspeto nga nahisgutan sa taas aron mahilayo kita sa masaypanong paghubad ug dili kita mahilayo sa kamatuoran. Karon atong ipadayon ang paghatag ug kahayag sa liny ana naa sa Juna 1:1 nga “ang Pulong mao ang Diyos” nga kon diin gipanghimakak ug gilubag sa Iglesia ni Cristo pinaagi sa rules sa grammar.

 

Matud sa panudlo sa Iglesya ni Kristo, ang gisulti ni Apostol Juan diha (1:1) nga “ang Pulong mao ang Diyos” wala magpasabot nga Diyos ang maong pulong kundili gihulagway o gidescribe lamang niini ang pulong sa Diyos. Mao kini ang nakasulat sa Juan 1:1,

 

“Sa sinugdanan diha na ang Pulong. Ang Pulong diha sa Diyos, ug ang Pulong mao ang Diyos.” [In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.] [ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος]

Ang atong hatagan ug kasulbaran dinhi mao ang ikatulo nga linya; ang Pulong mao ang Diyos o the Word was God or καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai ho Theos en Logos). Insakto ba ang INC sa pag ingon nga ang terminong “Pulong o Word o Logos” usa lamang ka adjective o paghulagway sa Diyos?

Dili.

            Unang pagnegar niini mao ang kahimtang sa termino, kini bang “Pulong o Word o Logos” nagsugod sa gamay nga letra o dako, kay ug madako, klaro kayo nga kini dili usa ka paghulagway kundili usa ka “pangngalan” o noun. Ato sab mabantayan nga bisan ug asa nga bibliya kita mubasa, wala gyuy bersyon nga nagpahiluna sa maong termino isip “pulong o word o logos” kundili, kanunay gayud nga nagsugod sa dakong letra.

 

Ikaduhang pagnegar sa maong hubad sa INC mao ang kaso sa terminong “Pulong o Word o Logos”. Ang kaso niini binase sa tekstwal analysis, ang mao nga termino (Pulong o Word o Logos) usa ka pangngalan sa estado nga nominative-masculine-singular kapareho mismo sa terminong “Diyos”. Ato usab hinumduman nga ang grammar sa griyego walay usa lamang ka porma kundili pwede kini mabali sama niini:

 

Kai Logos en ho Theos = and Word was the God

Kai ho Theos en Logos = and the Word was God

 

Busa dili pwedeng iinsist sa INC na ang nakapahimo sa terminong “Pulong” isip panghulagway ang pagkawala sa terminong “ang” o “ho” diha sunod sa terminong Diyos (…ang Diyos).

 

Aron atoa pa gayud masabtan ang punto sa chapter 1 ni Apostol Juan, atong padayonon diha sa bersikulo 2:

 

“He was in the beginning with God.”

 

Nagkaklaro na dinhing dapita kung unsa o kinsa ba gayod ang Pulong tungod kay ang termino nga gigamit dinhi mao naman ang “HE” dili na “Word”. Unya padayon ta sa bersikulo 3:

 

“Pinaagi niya nahimo ang tanan, ug walay nahimo nga dili pinaagi niya.”

 

Kini nga bersikulo ni Apostol Juan, ni komplementar kini sa giingon ni Apostol Pablo diha sa Colossas 1:15 nga nag ingon “nga siya mao ang dagway sa Dios nga dili makita, ang panganay sa tanang binuhat”, bisan pa ug may pagkaretorika kini, klaro man kaayo nga si Kristo ang gipasabot niana. Nikomplementar ang Juan1:3 diha sa Col.1:15 tungod kay si Kristo man ang panganay sa tanang binuhat buot pasabot nga naa na siya sa wala pa ang ubang binuhat o nauna siya sa tanan.

 

Padayon kita sa bersikulo 8 nga nagkanayon:

“He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.”

 

Kinsa man kining kahayag nga gisulti ni Apostol Juan, atong hibaloon pinaagi ra usab kang Apostol Juan diha kapitulo 8 bersikulo 12, “Unya misuli pag usab si Jesus kanila nga miingon: Ako mao ang kahayag sa kalibutan…” Ang punto niini nga ang Pulong dinhi sa John Chapter 1 walay lain kundili si Jesus, gani daghan ang gilitok ni Apostol Juan nga mitumbok tanan ngadto kang Jesus ug dili sa hulagway lamang. Ang nagpamatuod niini mao ang bersikulo 14 nga nagkanayon:

 

“And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,

and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son,

full of grace and truth.”

 

Ang mao nga Pulong nahimong lawas ug mipuyo uban kanato gani atoang Nakita ang iyang himaya sa bugtong anak sa Amahan. Klaro kaayo ug tataw gani gipamatud-an kini ni San Pablo diha sa iyang unang sulat ngadto kay Timoteo 3:16 nga ang Diyos mipadayag diha sa lawas, nga nagkanayon, “Ug dili malalis nga daku gayud ang tinago sa atong tinoohan: Ang Dios nadayag diha sa lawas, nahimatud-an nga matarung diha sa Espiritu, nakita sa mga manolunda, giwali sa taliwala sa kanasuran, gitoohan dinhi sa kalibutan, gibayaw ngadto sa himaya.” Busa dili gayod malalis ang kamatuoran nga si Jesus dili lamang tawo kundili Diyos usab nga hingpit kay siya “bisan tuod siya naglungtad diha sa kinaiya sa Dios, siya wala mag-isip sa iyang pagkasama sa Dios ingon nga usa ka butang nga pagailogan; hinonoa, gihaw-asan niya ang iyang kaugalingon diha sa iyang pagsagop sa kinaiya sa ulipon, diha sa iyang pagkahisama sa mga tawo. (Fil. 2:6).

Lantawa sa YouTube ang akoang pagpahayag niini. Click it!

 

 

Introduction to Ethics (Discussion)

 

Discussion on John Rawl's Justice as Fairness

 

The Yoke of Greatness

(Reflection: Queenship of Mary)

Queenship of Mary

Humans' most known tendency is being selfish. Others even call it as human nature – as if it is inborn. For it does not need the whys and the wherefores to act selfishly, nor training, workshops, formations or seminars. Once a person attains consciousness, it is always expected, he will prioritize himself first than the others. On any occasion, one will always select an act or a decision that would benefit him the most. As a result, vices of any sort are developed. It perfectly vibe with human weakness and vulnerability. That is why men whose weakness is an inclination for sex; they’re easily lured to it. And so, with other human weaknesses. However, before it turns to be human weakness, it was once only a thought. A thought one wanted to experience out of curiosity. Yet when it’s tasted, he will be craving for more. From a thought, it became a habit – embedded in one's character. Thus, will evolve one into something he is not. At first, it will be enjoyable, pleasurable and gratifying, but when it is taken, it will turn into a crisis.

An example of this is the story of a man in the 18th Century who was determined to achieve autonomy, success and greatness. His name was Peter. He came from a poor village whose family relied on farming as the means of living. His father was a devout Christian and firm in his belief of a reckoning God. Knowing that his son was stubborn and had no regard in their religion, he refused to give him any money. So, Peter grew with a grudge towards his father. When he finished his High School, he secretly applied to an Engineering University in a big city too far from their home. He was accepted but his father was upset and wouldn't allow him to be away for he might only do whatever he wanted, and eventually lose direction of his life. But Peter was too self-confident that he could make it on his own, so he rejected all the advice of his father about staying, and to return to Christ. True enough, he went to the city on his own. He studied hard and at the same time worked in his vacant hours to sustain his needs. Because of his brilliancy, he met a wealthy friend named Luke, whom he shared his revolutionary idea about turning a turbine’s mechanical energy into electricity. Luke was too amazed hearing about it, so he helped Peter introduce the project to his father, Philip, the wealthiest man in the city. Philip had seen his project as a modern technology and enough to supply a cheaper electrical energy in the whole city. So, he helped Peter propose the project to the Government’s Ministry of Energy. However, the Minister insulted him because the project seems unrealistic and that he was not yet an engineer. The proud Peter got offended, in response he’d thrown derogatory and foul words to the Minister, then walked out. But when Philip found out, he appealed to the Minister. Since they’re friends, the Minister would only approve the project and finance it if Peter would apologize. But Peter stood up on his decision that he better scrap the project than apologize. From then on, Philip stopped giving Peter allowances. He ended up bankrupt and alone. He considered selling his project, but to no avail, nobody took his offer. He returned home depressed and unfulfilled.

Peter’s dream of success and greatness was already within reach, but he dodged on it by his unwillingness to compromise an apology. If he was only humble enough, everything will just fall into its proper places. But it did not happen. The fuel of hypocrisy was just so strong in his senses. He saw himself as perfect and way too superior in intellect than the others. No one can bend his decisions, not even his own father.

Out of sanctimony and bad faith, his true self was alienated from him. He was blinded by hate towards his father. This hate made him into an unbecoming human – capable of true love and expressing oneself clearly. That was why all relationships he had with other people had fallen to ruin because it went against his orchestration. His father was right, if he only returned to Christ in his early years, he must have been guided not by his egotistical self but by the morals of the Church. He must have learned that greatness is bestowed to anyone who is willing enough to bow down to pick it up from the ground. Like Jesus himself, who is a God, who out of love went down from his heavenly throne to earth to sacrifice his life for humanity’s sake. Which such act magnified his greatness in the eyes of the Father. Same as well of his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, she did not seek to be the savior’s mother but was chosen. And lo, when she’s aware that she’s chosen, she did not boast nor use it as a leverage from others but she committed herself for the service of her son and of the people around her. She did not seek greatness, but because of her humility and obedience, she became great not just in the eyes of the people, but also in the eyes of God.

People must know, aspiring greatness has no price but once it’s achieved, it is twinned with great responsibility. It has to be carried out with great courage and humility – the self-recognition that one has only climbed the social ladder and not become a master of anyone. These are the common mistakes of great people in history. Not knowing that the yoke of greatness is not responsibility, but the struggle to keep an eye to one’s real identity. That whatever happens, we will stay as humans. And no matter how great and how high in social status we can get to, we will never become God.

©JMJ's Quodlibet

IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs CATHOLIC [GRAND DEBATE]

Watch here the full, clear and louder video of the Grand Debate between the Iglesia ni Cristo (Minister Ramil Parba) and the Roman Catholic (Bros. Soc Ferndandes, Woodrow Maquiling and Paras Pilipinas) which took place in Quezon Park of Dumaguete City on October 25, 2013.