A promise of nothing in life and everything in death

Written on Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am | by benign0

What is it with Pinoys not being able to give a straight answer to simple child-like questions? Instead of a straightforward engagement of one’s intelligent sensibilities, we routinely get a padrino-style Old-Fartish ad hoministic rebuke for our unabashed impertinence.

And to think the last 20-odd years of Pinoy history was marked by hollow-headed calls to our society’s “elders” and leaders to give us straight answers. Now that’s what I call oxymoronic, or to put it in the less scholarly manner of some people, dumb.

In an interesting instance of the pot exhibiting the same blackness of the proverbial kettle, mlq3 called the following potentially paradigm-shifting assertions of mine “shallow and patently false statement of the utmost stupidity“:

:D Catholicism basically promises NOTHING in life and EVERYTHING in death; which can lead us to surmise that;

:D Those who are wholly imprisoned by what a bunch of Bishops [i.e. officers of this belief system] have to say have NOTHING [in essence]; which means that, in principle they may as well;

:D Just go lay down and die and leave the earthly treasures to those who prefer to reap them while alive.

Do these koans sound “dumb”? I think they come across as quite reasonable, if I do say so myself.

Despite my small-voice-in-the-forest pleas — for some clarity around my sudden relegation to dumb-blonde status…

mlq3, is it really “shallow and patently false statement of the utmost stupidity”?

Or does it merely offend your culturally-ingrained sensibilities? ;)

You will have to decide at some point which one of your sensibilities is doing the talking, dude.

…all I get for my angelic curiosity on the matter is the all-too-familiar Pinoy-style parinig which I will get back to in a while after I first explore the sense behind the only semi-sensible response I got in the thread — one from the venerable “hvrds”…

Where did this clueless one get his Catholic schooling?

The traditions of the Catholic Church most especially in the Philippines have not moved beyond the Copernican age simply because the people in power have used the Church itself to mis-educate the people.

Majority of the Princes of the Church here are disciples of Satan more than of their own founder.

The Church after all is not a human association.

… a bit cryptic for my child-like mind but definitely something to work with compared to the other “dumb”-as-a-response.

It seems “hvrds” makes like an extreme Catholic apologist and blames the Church’s human custodians who he calls “disciples of Satan” for perpetrating the atrocities that pepper human history in the last 2000 years done in the name of its “founder” (if by ‘founder’ he refers to The Man JC himself, I’d question that as well, but that in itself is gonna be another long unrelated discussion). He absolves this Church of all the sins of its “princes” with the assertion that it is one that is not of “human association”. Strange, considering that we tend to often refer to the Church as an “institution” a concept very squarely grounded in human terms.

I won’t build an argument around the last sentence of the above paragraph. That would be mere Pinoy-style nit-picking and set Yours Truly back into the square of the droll and unintelligent, focused on the trivial or the irrelevant if I did. Instead, I’ll take the high road and explore the bigger point I would rather make (because my fans expect me to and because I very much respect the minds at work here in FV).

Let’s start with the notion that serves as the pillars of the statements of the esteemed “hvrds” — that;

:o Ignoring the shenanigans of its human custodians, the Church is inherently a sound and internally-coherent framework for the purpose of (a) propagation and dissemination of a spiritual belief system and (b) implementation of governance over the believers of said spiritual belief system; and,

:o Officers of the Church — the so-called “disciples of Satan”, our nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals, and some popes — are solely responsible for the corrupted way that this otherwise noble, holy, and, in princile, internally-coherent institution represents and applies itself in human society.

In essence “hvrds” says that we as “believers” are supposed to look beyond the antics of said officers and remain loyal to the institution’s essence as articulated, say, in its constitution or dogma. As we profess every Sunday: basta believe.

But wait a minute! What exactly is this essence? The absolute power and infallibility behind the human word of said officers is itself enshrined in the very DNA of this noble institution — its dogma and Canon Law. On top of that, its mantra is for us to just believe. It seems it never occurred to “hvrds” that a closed, insular, and convoluted framework or environment tends to be a fertile breeding ground for corruption.

Holy Kim Jong Il, Batman, the Catholic Church is a dyed-to-the-bone totalitarian system in sheep’s clothing!

As a matter of fact, in a previous FV article, I describe in simple terms the nature of the 2000-year-old conflict-of-interest that is the Catholic Church — that hotbed of hotbeds of inbred thinking that continues to hinder progress in the Philippines.

So, here we are at the dawn of an eye-opening conceptual coming together of how we regard our Catholic faith in the context of the pseudo-thinking that goes into our laughable national debate on the politics of change (be it of national presidents or of national charters) which I will frame in yet another child-like question around a hypothetical scenario:

As a person who supposedly embodies “democratic” ideals, would you vote for the ratification of a hypothetical national Constitution that is structurally similar to that which underpins the Catholic Church?

If you consider free thought and free inquiry as part and parcel to your democratic ideals, I’d say “Probably not” in answer to the above question.

[Hold that thought on the “free inquiry” bit as it will be made even more relevant towards the end of this article]

And lest this line of questioning be construed as a question about things like Talibanesque theocracies, the following should shed some light on where I am really headed with this:

We latch on to the Church and its medieval thinking and governance approach in order to fight for our supposedly modern democratic ideals making out an otherwise structurally-democratic and modern government as the Bad Guy and a closed inbred institution as the Good Guy.

[Nothing original. Just another snippet of wisdom I quote from that same recent piece as well.]

So just excuse me, Mr. “hvrds”, but the irony here which seems to have been lost in your brilliant-by-Pinoy-standards mind is that separating the Church as an “institution” from its human officers merely focuses our careful scrutiny on the very nature of this institution itself — sans its “flawed” human component. What we find is an archaic built-upon-ignorance framework that is a complete anti-thesis of even the flawed form of modern governance and even its officers that we love to hate, much more the ideals our makabayan hollowheads goad us to “fight” for with raised fists.

And thus the bizarreness by our readiness to seek solace in its comfy bosom in this so-called “fight” (ayan na naman) for our modern and democratic ideals becomes a bit more apparent.

I’m tempted to end now and hope that my failure to come back to mlq3’s admonition will go unnoticed (i.e. do the Pinoy thing and hope na makalusot). But because I am a bloke of my word, I’ll come back to it and have this to say:

Try to apply a bit of free inquiry in your quest to understand the nature of the venerable institution of the Church, and chances are you may get a response kinda like this:

a person who sneers at religion -and who proclaims it empty or void of meaning- is a person absolutely identical, in terms of narrowness and poverty of thought and imagination, not to mention charity and compassion, as a crazed inquisitor or a bolshevik or nazi thug.

Classy and very “modern” — in a Pinoy sort of way, that is.

Get Real Philippines!

============
Join us on Facebook!
Join us on Facebook!

Tags: , , , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.COM and has once been described as "one of the most enthusiastic hecklers of the politically-passionate" by a respected journalist.

Filed Under Society

Related Entries:

Comments

21 Responses to “A promise of nothing in life and everything in death”

  1. Jeg on November 3rd, 2008 11:54 am

    Do these koans sound “dumb”? I think they come across as quite reasonable, if I do say so myself.

    Theyre eminently reasonable. Rational, in fact. That’s what’s wrong with your “koans” and that’s what makes them stupid because it ignores the role religion played in forming our civilization which was where MLQ3 was coming from. If for example people succeed in eliminating the influence of religion, all we’ll have left is science. Or Science, capital S, as some would prefer. We’ll have a society based on Darwin. We can then, as one of your getralists proposed, enforce the sterilization of those the Republic of GetReal deem inferior because that’s a perfectly rational thing to do. We can let the poor, those who dont have what it takes to survive, die, because that’s the rational thing to do. Why would we waste resources on these bums?

  2. mlq3 on November 3rd, 2008 12:14 pm

    you ought to consider if a question posed in an entirely antagonizing manner deserves either consideration or the courtesy of a reply.

  3. benign0 on November 3rd, 2008 12:22 pm

    You allowed your pendulum to swing too far out, Jeg. Of course, to be fair, those koans can be interpreted the way you do (for that matter, even the most benign of ideas have been perverted as we all too well know).

    You of all people can do a bit better than that. ;)

    Here’s a start for you. Think of it from a more moderate perspective. Those who rely more on religious constructs like prayer to determine their fortunes are more likely to have less or even nothing compared to those who tend to rely more on what their more earthly implements can deliver.

  4. Jen on November 3rd, 2008 12:27 pm

    Someday Benign-0 I hope you come to realize that the world does not revolve around you and that things aren’t always about you ;-)

    You’ll find out that it’s simple, really :D

  5. benign0 on November 3rd, 2008 1:04 pm

    Someday Benign-0 I hope you come to realize that the world does not revolve around you and that things aren’t always about you

    Advise taken on board, Jen.

    Interestingly enough, I think a bit of trivia is in order here. Wasn’t there a time in the past when the Church’s minions use to take people who even suggested that the universe didn’t revolve around the Earth and burn them at the stake?

    I think mlq3 refers to that time — or thereabouts — as the Inquisition.

    I guess that little fact wouldn’t be too trivial if you were the kinda person who lived during those times and begged to differ on the popular and comfy sensibilities of your time. ;)

  6. Jon Limjap on November 3rd, 2008 1:08 pm

    benign0,

    Here’s a start for you. Think of it from a more moderate perspective. Those who rely more on religious constructs like prayer to determine their fortunes are more likely to have less or even nothing compared to those who tend to rely more on what their more earthly implements can deliver.

    Hmmm, I tend to think that the uber-business savvy Chinese are actually a very superstitious/religious lot, meditating on their joss sticks and wishing stones and vigorously applying feng shui to the structures that houes the largest, wealthiest and most efficient of institutions (the HSBC headquarters in Hong Kong comes to mind).

    So while they rely on their earthly implements, they remain beholden to ethereal constructs as well, which is understandable considering the massive amounts of risk they take.

  7. cvj on November 3rd, 2008 1:42 pm

    It’s about time Benign0 had his bull session. ;-)

  8. Jeg on November 3rd, 2008 3:11 pm

    You allowed your pendulum to swing too far out, Jeg.

    I just followed where the pendulum swung, benny. You swung it too far to the other side. But to be fair, you did stop short of following it where it led.

    Think of it from a more moderate perspective. Those who rely more on religious constructs like prayer to determine their fortunes are more likely to have less or even nothing compared to those who tend to rely more on what their more earthly implements can deliver.

    I can’t top Jon’s answer. The moderate perspective would of course be those who dont jettison their religious beliefs (and so inform their dealings with fellow humans) while at the same time rely in their, if youll pardon the expression, God-given talents to pursue their aspirations for a better life.

  9. benign0 on November 3rd, 2008 5:20 pm

    Jeg/Jon, as with most things, this is all just a continuum and there is a balance somewhere that depends on the character of the entity to which it will be applied.

    Reliance on earthly implements vs reliance on ethereal/mythical constructs will always be present in all. Its just a question of how far the proverbial pendulum swings either way and how constructive/destructive it is.

    It’s not too different from the whole benevolent dictatorship vs extremely representative democracy thing which I wrote about way back where I said:

    In effect, we can, on one end, be comfortable sacrificing individual liberties in exchange for expeditiousness and decisiveness in governance if and only if we can trust leaders to act purely in the interests of the greater community. At the other end of the continuum we can be willing to shoulder the relative costs and complex bureacracy of an ultra-representative “democracy” (such as the Philippines’) when we absolutely cannot expect our leaders to act beyond their selfish interests.

    In this case, I offended popular sensibilities of that day by suggesting that maybe we deserved a dictatorship after all given the character of our society.

    Same banana now, only the continuum involves the nature of one’s faith (or lack of it) instead of degrees of democracy — atheism or extremely rational secularism on one end and dogmatic beholdennes or extreme religiousness on the other end.

    Given the character of the Pinoy my assertion leans more towards the earlier because we already have a society that generally leans far towards the latter.

  10. GabbyD on November 3rd, 2008 5:50 pm

    the title of your post — nothing in life, everything in death — isn’t that the heart of all religion?

    this isnt surprising. We are taught that we want to go to heaven, jesus christ is the key to it, JC instituted the church to help people learn about JC, how to get to heaven, etc.

    indeed, its all about death –conquering it, no longer fearing it. JC rose from the dead.

    Now, the presumption is that this is GOOD news; i.e. people want to know that death isn’t the end, that there is heaven, JC is the key, etc

    This is why laying down and dying is NOT an option if you have faith in this good news.

    all the above is a matter of faith. If this is something that doesn’t appeal to you, then fine. It doesn’t appeal to everyone.

    But, at the very least, can’t we discuss things while respecting people’s faith? if you weren’t being sarcastic to prove a point — i don’t appreciate the lay down and die part. This isn’t something we wish on others, not even our enemies. Isn’t our character defined by how we treat people who disagree with us?

  11. Jen on November 3rd, 2008 5:51 pm

    Instead, I’ll take the high road and explore the bigger point I would rather make (because my fans expect me to and because I very much respect the minds at work here in FV).

    LOLz! :D

  12. cocoy on November 3rd, 2008 6:02 pm

    benign0,

    Leadership is about who is willing to play god.

    it is often so easy to say that people are idiots. how can we not help but think that? one can often wonder if a fish market vendor can truly grasp the intricacies of say, a negotiation between governments or why for example a government must borrow and pay for money. How can they know the details? We wonder at the superstition of others or how seemingly they believe things that we can not grasp or believe to be inherently wrong.

    for all the insanity this brings both sides— that’s the beauty of democracy. We can fight tooth and nail for everything we believe is right and another person can do the same, with equal passion.

    that said, democracy has a funny way of showing the wisdom of the people. sometimes it is crazy. sometimes it goes against all logic or our own personal belief.

    As the American experiment has time and again showed us that democracy can work. 30 years ago who would have thought that an African American is running for the presidency? The beauty of the American experiment is that it changes. it is dynamic. it constantly reinvents itself and rejuvenates itself that in 8 years, it can take the opposite direction from W. Bush’s tenure.

    It is hubris to think that we are any better than anybody else. It is dangerous to leave power in one man or a few men. History has taught us that.

    However we may find it distasteful or shallow— who are we to judge? And are we any better to judge what is shallow?

    It also brings us back to what i’ve been blogging about since april this year. we need good people to run for public office. and anybody out there who believes they can do a better job, instead of impeachment— run. prove it.

    Which brings us back to the wisdom of democracy. a fish vendor is just as qualified to lead as a person who went to medical school or who took the bar. the same can be said about a man who believes in God and a man who doesn’t.

    Wisdom like creativity has no fixed vector, no fixed formula.

    as a food for thought, i ask this question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  13. cvj on November 3rd, 2008 6:14 pm

    But, at the very least, can’t we discuss things while respecting people’s faith? if you weren’t being sarcastic to prove a point — i don’t appreciate the lay down and die part. This isn’t something we wish on others, not even our enemies. Isn’t our character defined by how we treat people who disagree with us? - GabbyD

    I agree. That’s the part that appalled me as well. It’s like Benign0 was saying that the poor are better off dead so that he can better enjoy his material wealth. Reminds me of this dialogue in the movie Independence Day between the President and the Captured Alien:

    President:I know there is much to learn from each other if we can make a truce. We can find a way to Co-exist. can there be a peace between us?

    Alien: Peace? NO PEACE!

    President Whitmore: What is it you want us to do?

    Captured Alien: Die…die…

    That Benign0 has survived as an online entity all through these eight years is testament to the prevalence of that sort of elitist mindset.

  14. The Ca t on November 3rd, 2008 6:49 pm

    Catholicism basically promises NOTHING in life and EVERYTHING in death; which can lead us to surmise that;Just go lay down and die and leave the earthly treasures to those who prefer to reap them while alive.

    your ignorance on religion is showing dude.

    Even before JC roamed the ghettos of Jerusalem teaching about life after death, the pharaohs in Egypt built the pyramids in preparation for this life . But instead of leaving their wealth they brought it with them in their tomb… thus Angelina Jolie became famous as tomb raider.

    2. the Chinese have the burial habits of burning
    paper houses and cars so that the dead can use them in the next life. Even in “heaven” they like to enjoy luxury with their dead ancestors who are believed to have given them sound advice about business.

    3. I presume that you know why Muslims are not afraid to commit suicide for their religion.

    4. Should I tell you about Buddhism which explains the causes of sufferings and how to attain Nirvana.

    And I thought it is only your economic model which is simple, so simple that only simple-minded individuals could understand.

  15. jcc on November 3rd, 2008 10:31 pm

    cat, hold your horses. your point is best understood without the”ignorance, dude” salutation.

    i agree with you hundred per cent this time.

    i can also cite a greek mythology, or movie, Troy, where King Priam begs Hector’s body from Achilles so he can “put coins” on his eyes for the “boatman”. :)

    peace cat! ! !

  16. Phil Manila on November 3rd, 2008 11:51 pm

    People should not take umbrage when their views on Religion are questioned. Benign0’s continuum

    For many, Religion is the only thing they have to Get Through Life, specially for the Uneducated, Unwashed, and Unmotivated. At the other extreme is Pure Science, Pure Reason, and Pure Logic. This is all part of what Benig0′ calls ‘continuum.’

    Reality is, there are No Absolute Truths.

  17. benign0 on November 4th, 2008 3:23 am

    LOLz! :D

    Hey Jen, why not sign up as one of my “fans”?

    Click here! ;)

  18. jcc on November 4th, 2008 7:00 am

    For many, Religion is the only thing they have to Get Through Life, specially for the Uneducated, Unwashed, and Unmotivated. At the other extreme is Pure Science, Pure Reason, and Pure Logic. This is all part of what Benig0′ calls ‘continuum.’ — Phil Manila.

    Ouch ! Why are some people so judgmental against people who have their faith intact?
    Dr. Francis Collins is not unwashed, uneducated and unmotivated. He is a scientist and here is the highlight of his interview with Time Magazine together with the author of The God Delusion, a Darwinian-Atheist, Richard Dawkins.

    TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?

    DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

    TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

    COLLINS: Yes. God’s existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God’s existence is outside of science’s ability to really weigh in.

    TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.

    COLLINS: Gould sets up an artificial wall between the two worldviews that doesn’t exist in my life. Because I do believe in God’s creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God’s creation.

    DAWKINS: I think that Gould’s separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it’s a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.
    TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin’s theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.

    COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That’s an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as “Why am I here?”, “What happens after we die?”, “Is there a God?” If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn’t convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

    DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

    TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

    COLLINS: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

    DAWKINS: … It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he’d save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

    COLLINS: Richard, I think we don’t do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

    TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn’t it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

    COLLINS: If you’re willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there’s nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

    TIME: Doesn’t the very notion of miracles throw off science?

    COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

    DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today’s science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like “From the perspective of a believer.” Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific–really scientific–credibility. I’m sorry to be so blunt.

    COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.

    TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity’s moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

    COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.

  19. Mikey_Liling on November 4th, 2008 9:52 am

    1000 years ago, the brightest minds thought the world is flat.

    600 years ago, they Earth is the center of the Universe.

    60 years ago, they thought the atom is the smallest particle.

    30 years ago, Bill Gates swore 640kilobytes is enough.

    I go to church on Sundays, honored my parents, never killed anyone, never stolen or coveted that is not mine. When the time comes and St. Peter didn’t allow me to enter due to my sexual orientation, I say, where is the justice in there?

  20. Mikey_Liling on November 4th, 2008 9:54 am

    erratum: “thought” between they and Earth. :)

  21. cvj on November 4th, 2008 11:21 am

    Mikey, if you want to belong to a Christian faith that accepts homosexuals, you can become an Anglican (although that Church also has their share of dissension on this issue).

Leave a Reply