Leibniz's Contingency Argument, Part 2 || Omar Arellano

Last broadcast ay we talked about the first part of the contingency argument ni Leibniz. We presented the argument and showed the truthfulness of the first premise. We also briefly talked about establishing the second premise. We showed sa second premise na si God ang best explanation sa existence ng universe. Ito ay dahil between abstract objects, such as mathematical entities, and God ay si God ang best na nag account as an explanation sa universe, dahil aside from being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, ay we could see that God is a concrete object that is unimaginably powerful, which means na He could truly make changes sa reality, and that He is personal, which means na He could decide to create. Ang abstract objects ay causally walang power and impersonal, which cannot decide. Today ay we will talk about the second part of the contingency argument. We will continue sa pag establish ng premise 2 ng argument, then proceed to show how to establish premise 3 in case we need to give good reasons for people who deny the existence of the universe.
Going back sa premise 2, which is “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God” ay we could meet certain people who will say that the universe just exists necessarily. This is a radical admission. Ang comment nga ni William Lane Craig ay kahit ang atheist na philosopher of science na si Adolf Grunbaum ay indignant sa suggestion na yun ang view niya when Dr. Craig asked him. There will be some people who will say na instead of the universe, maybe ang matter itself that makes up the universe ang nag exist necessarily? Kaso this is problematic kasi we know that small particles like protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. May six types of quarks, which are up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. They can’t say na the ang matter in which elementary particles are composed of exists necessarily kasi they aren’t composed of anything. They are basic units of matter. So kung wala ang particular particle ay ang matter itself will not exist. Physicists would say din na the fundamental particles we have could’ve been different instead of the one that we have, and if that’s the case then we could’ve have a different universe. Dr. Craig gave an analogy like if your desk made of wood would instead be made of ice. If that happens, then an ice desk would’ve been a different desk and not the same desk. The same way that if we have different set of fundamental particles, ay even if it’s arranged identically sa universe natin ngayon ay we will still have a different universe. Even Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow would say na our universe ay isa sa 10500 na possible universes na maaaring mag come into existence. If the universe could’ve been different, then hindi ito nag exist by necessity. Now that we are able to establish Premise 2, let’s proceed sa third premise, which is “The universe exists”. If we meet a skeptic who doubts the existence of the external world, what do we do? Are we in the matrix? This is a first-order na skepticism. One solution na natutunan ko from Dr. Craig na puwede ko ibigay to this problem ay tinatawag na particularism. Advocates ng view na ito ay si G.E. Moore, Roderick Chisholm, and si Thomas Reid. Basically ay they will say that people can know specific na clear items for knowledge. Example nito ay we can affirm that we may seem to see a tree, or we can say na we know that 5+5 = 10, na kumain ako ng sinigang as lunch, atbp. And sinasabi rin ng particularists na we can know certain things without having to have a criteria kung paano natin nalaman ang mga bagay na iyon. We know many things kahit di natin fully na naiintindihan ang mga bagay bagay o kahit hindi natin kaya patunayan ang alam natin. Ang isang skeptic can object sa isang particularist in two ways: ang first one ay they will say na ang particularist ay nag beg ng question. Ang begging the question ay isang fallacy where the conclusion is assumed sa premises. So when the skeptic says this ay sinasabi niya na ina-assume ng particularist ang point in question, which is whether people have knowledge. Ang second one naman ay they will ask the particularist “how do you know?” Sa accusations na ito ay particularists could respond to this in four ways: First, if ang skeptic ay isang iterative skeptic, meaning ay hindi siya nag offer ng argument but merely asks in every assertion, “how did you know?” ay puwede hindi pansinin ito ng particularist dahil wala silang solid na position or argument. Pero if ang skepticism niya ay result ng isang argument ay puwede ipakita na one cannot reasonably doubt anything if you do not know some things. Ang isang global na unmitigated na skepticism ay hindi defensible na position kasi when they assert something ay they presuppose knowledge which they are trying to deny na possible. Second ay if skeptics will ask the question na “how do you know?” Particularists can simply refuse to play their game by saying na we can know certain things without being able to show or prove how we know it. Third, a particularist can say na just because logically possible na mali siya sa isang bagay ay hindi automatic na mali na siya agad in reality. So if hindi kaya ng skeptic to show good reasons kung bakit mali ang particularist ay hindi enough to merely say na logically possible na mali siya. Ang burden of proof ay nasa skeptic to show this.

Fourth, the particularist can show na he avoids the infinite regress sa usapan about knowledge and that they accord with the reality na people could really know some things contrary sa assertion ng skeptic. As a side comment, maliban sa arguments na binigay natin about particularism which we could use to demonstrate na we could know some things, like the existence of the universe, we can see common-sensically na the skeptic does not live consistently sa kanilang beliefs kasi in reality they live their lives as if they could really know some things. For this reason ay we could say na it’s the case that the universe or the external world does exist. Take note na in presenting an argument sa conversations ay hindi natin need i-establish or show lahat ng premises. We can just argue for the truthfulness of the premise if yung certain premise ay may objection from a person na kausap natin. Some of the premises kasi ay maaari na they will concede, like the third premise. So to review, let’s go back sa argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

So based on the contingency argument, in light of what we have talked about. Since premise 1 and 3 is true, then it follows sa premise 4 na ang universe ay may explanation for its existence. And since premise 2 and 4 ay totoo ay it’s reasonable for us to conclude na ang explanation for the existence of the universe is God. And if you don’t prefer the term God, as Dr. Craig would argue, ay the best explanation is “the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the universe and everything in it”.

Today, in this broadcast ay we were able to show that the best explanation sa existence ng universe ay si God by addressing the objection that the universe exists necessarily. Aside from that ay I gave one good reason to show skeptics that the universe or the external world ay indeed nag exist in case they meet actual people first-order skeptics. Next broadcast ay we will now talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is an argument that shows what is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Apologetics in Christianity & Science || John Ricafrente Pesebre

Among my many joys in apologetics ministry is to introduce modern counter-intuitive ideas most especially to evangelicals who have a negative bias against anything secular. One of these ideas is the integral relationship between faith and science, especially big science -- the era of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus.

Notice that those three are engineers. Engineers are concerned with mechanisms (an idea pointed out by Steve Fuller -- philosopher-sociologist and Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the Department of sociology at University of Warwick, England). These were people along with others like Faraday, Boyle, Brahe, Kepler, and Maxwell who saw in nature mechanisms that are worthwhile and beneficial to discover and investigate. Once discovered they mapped out laws and also mathematical computations that would give an account of the phenomenon.

Notice also, that those scientists and engineers were professing Christian. They believed that nature’s mechanism is a worthwhile discovery because it was not only looking into the how God's mind worked but how it can be understood rationally.

Why believe nature is rational? Because the Creator is a rational being. Albert Einstein hints at the idea of a divinely-ordained rational universe: “I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason." In the era of the big sciences, scientists were more explicit about the relationship of science and their belief in God. Robert Boyle said, “God would not have made the universe as it is unless he intended us to understand it.” Sabi din ni Louis Pasteur, “A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him . . . The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

So there you go. The engineers of modern science looked at nature and they saw a mechanism placed there by God. In the Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, the Holy Grail of Newtonian physics, Isaac Newton wrote this, “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.” This was the Newton who in one of his journals wrote, "Yet one thing secures us what ever betide, the scriptures assures us that the Lord will provide.”

Leibniz’s Contingency Argument Part 1 || Omar Arellano

Sa ating huling broadcast ay we talked about classical apologetics. We discussed about the two-step method ng classical apologists in showing Christianity to be true, which is ang pag gamit ng natural theology, kung saan we prove the existence of God using observation sa nature and our human reason, and also ang Christian evidences, which are particular evidence we use to make the case for the truthfulness of Christianity. Sa ating broadcast today ay we will start na to talk about the arguments we use sa natural theology for us to prove the existence of God. We will start sa Contingency Argument ni Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. What we will do muna is to present the argument, then explain each point for us to understand it properly.

Si Gottfried Leibniz ay kilala bilang co-founder ng calculus with Isaac Newton. Si Isaac Newton ay isang Ingles, at si Leibniz ay isang German, and they independently discovered calculus. Don’t worry kasi hindi naman related dun ang ating pag-uusapan today. Ang aim natin for talking about Leibniz’s argument ay for us to answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” or in other words “Why does anything at all exist?”, which he wrote sa kanyang introduction sa philosophy of nature and metaphysics entitled “The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason”. Magandang question ito for us to answer kasi it’s nostalgic, kasi it reminds us of our childhood kung saan ay we wonder kung saan ba nanggaling lahat ng nakikita natin. Here in our discussion ay I relied sa work ni William Lane Craig sa book niya na On Guard. I’ll do my best to explain it to you in simple terms. Let me start our discussion by introducing the argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Sa argument na ito ay we can see that Premise 3 is obvious. If a person ay isang seeker after truth ay hindi niya ito i-deny. Ang obvious na i-deny nila first na we can talk about is ang Premise 1. In Premise 1, they will say object na “God then has a reason for His existence”. If we look sa argument ay it seems vulnerable sa objection dahil it says that “everything” ay may reason for their existence, which of course includes God. And if you say na si God ay nag exist without explanation, you will be accused na nag commit ka ng special pleading kasi you exempted God sa “everything” without enough justification. And they will be right na nag commit ka ng ganito na logical fallacy if you do that. You tempt them to say in the same vein na “bakit hindi puwede na ang universe ay nag exist lang without explanation?” As a Christian, to avoid this problem, ay you don’t have to worry about the idea that God has an explanation for His existence. Please allow me to explain. Sa pananaw ni Leibniz ay may dalawang bagay: first, ay ang mga bagay na nag exist necessarily, at pangalawa, mga bagay na nag exist contingently. Ang mga bagay na nag exist contingently ay nag rely sa isang external cause or sa ibang bagay in order for them to exist. Ang obvious example nito ay tayo mismo. We rely sa existence ng parents natin in order for us to exist. Ganoon din ang mga parents natin sa kanilang mga parents for them to exist. Ang mga phones natin ay nag rely sa materials na needed and for isang group or factory in order for the phones to exist. Tapos ang mga nag exist naman necessarily ay mga bagay na nag exist by necessity dahil sa kanilang nature. In other words ay impossible for them na hindi mag exist. Ang nature nila ay they cannot not exist. Ang example nito ay abstract objects tulad ng numbers, sets, at ibang mathematical entities. Hindi sila social construct na gawa natin. So it’s true nga na everything ay may explanation for their existence, either sa necessity of their own nature or dahil sa isang external cause. So when they ask us about the reason for God’s existence ay it’s because of the necessity of His own nature. This will provoke them to say na in the same way ay the universe ay nag exist based sa necessity ng own nature nito. They will say this kasi if we say na may explanation ang universe sa existence nito then we are saying na before the universe happened ay may nothingness, but siyempre it cannot be an explanation for anything. So for them by virtue of that ay it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation, which is a logically fallacy na they assume from the start na totoo ang atheism. This is something siyempre na sila ang may burden of proof to establish. Even physicists na hindi Christian would say na time, space, and matter started when the universe started. If the universe started, then siyempre that would show na it fits sa category na ang universe ay isang contingent being. Ang analogy na we can give sa pagiging self evident ng premise 1 ay if we see a translucent ball sa isang forest floor. Siyempre we won’t think na it just existed inexplicably. If palakihin natin ang bola sa size ng car, we still would want an explanation. Kahit size pa ito ng house, or ng planet natin, or if ang ball would be the size of the whole universe! Some will say na true ito sa mga bagay inside the universe pero not of the universe itself, pero this would be a logical fallacy, kasi hindi puwede i-affirm na lahat ay may explanation, then you will exempt ang universe bigla by saying na walang explanation sa existence ng universe. For this reason ay mas plausible na true ang premise 1 rather than false.

Let’s now proceed sa Premise 2, which is “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” For me ay reasonable na premise ito kasi two lang namang ang possible na reasonable explanation for the existence ng universe, which is God and abstract objects. The reason for this ay if time, space, and matter, started when the universe started, then the cause of the universe must be beyond time, space, and matter. If hindi kasi beyond time, space, and matter ang cause ay it presupposes na agad ang existence of time, space, and matter, which is a logical contradiction. You’re basically saying na ang naging cause ng universe ay isang matter eh before the universe ay hindi pa nag exist ang matter. Therefore, ang cause dapat ng universe ay spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. That’s why ang possible na causes ay si God and ang abstract objects, which are mathematical entities. We have good reasons to think na hindi abstract objects ang cause, dahil causally impotent ang abstract objects to make changes sa world. They have no power and dahil impersonal ang mga ito ay wala silang capability to decide to create. Ang may capability to create or make changes ay isang concrete object, which truly exists and hindi lang mere concept. Ang best na nag fit here ay si God kasi maliban sa pagiging spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, ay unimaginable powerful and personal si God, so He can make changes and siyempre ay He can decide to create.

Dahil sa lack of time ay we will continue the discussion sa next episode. We will go back sa possible objection na the universe just exists necessarily, which people may use to avoid God being the explanation of the universe. We will address this to help you establish premise 2. Aside from that ay we will give good reasons in address objections in case we meet people who will object to premise 3 or they deny that the universe exists.

Today, ay we were able to present the argument and establish premise 1. We made distinctions about contingent and necessary beings for us to avoid the possible accusation of special pleading when we say na everything has an explanation for their existence. We also talked briefly about premise 2 of the contingency argument. Next episode ay we will talk about the objection sa premise 2 na ang universe ay nag exist necessarily. We will also talk about establishing the third premise in case we meet someone na mag-contest nito.

What is Classical Apologetics? || Omar Arellano

Ang apologetics ay isang science and art kung paano i-defend ang ating pananampalataya from objections laban dito. Lahat ng mga Christians ay called to practice apologetics. Ito ay dahil makikita natin mismo sa sinabi ni Apostle Paul na part ng ministry ng gospel ang pag defend sa gospel. Sabi nga ni Paul sa Philippians 1:7, “It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.” In light of this siyempre ay mapapatanong tayo about sa different methods kung paano ba i-defend ang ating faith. Sa current na series natin ay I will talk about ang methodology na tinatawag na classical apologetics. Pagkatapos ng talk natin about sa classical apologetics ay pag-uusapan natin sa mga susunod na broadcast ang mga iba’t ibang argumento na napapabilang sa methodology na ito upang maging mas familiar tayo rito. Sa ngayon ay magbibigay muna ako ng introduction patungkol sa kung ano ba ang classical apologetics bilang isang methodology. Ang magiging basis natin sa pag explain kung ano ang classical apologetics ay ang libro ni Steven Cowan sa Five Views on Apologetics kung saan ay may contribution ang apologist na si William Lane Craig about classical apologetics.

Basically ay Dr. Craig showed na ang methodological approach for classical apologetics is to use reason in the form of rational arguments and evidence ay essential for us to show that Christianity is true, though ang reason only has a secondary or contingent na role in personally knowing that Christianity is true. The reason is that ang proper ground of us knowing Christianity to be true ay based sa inner witness ng Holy Spirit sa ating hearts. We will share about this distinction of showing Christianity to be true and knowing Christianity to be true for us to appreciate the classical method. Ang classical na approach ay practiced ni Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, at William Paley. Three notable people na we know in our generation who practice it is si William Lane Craig, si R.C. Sproul who died last December 17, 2017, and si Norman Geisler who died last July 1, 2019. Ang classical na approach ay binubuo ng natural theology at Christian evidences. Ang natural theology ay defined as a way of reflecting on the existence and nature of God na independent sa divine revelation. Ang ginagamit nila typically ay ang human reason and also observation ng nature or ng universe. Ang mga example naman nito ay ang cosmological, teleological, moral, at ontological arguments for God’s existence. Ang Christian evidences naman ay evidence that particularly make a case for the truthfulness of Christianity. Ang examples nito ay ang arguments ni Geisler such as miracles, reliability of the scriptures, the resurrection of Jesus, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of the Bible. Just a quick comment, we will explain each of the mentioned arguments for us to grasp the big picture better so no worries if di niyo gets what is being referred to. Going back, in showing Christianity to be true, ang classical apologists would see na necessary ang pag gamit ng natural theology and Christian evidences, or in other words ay to show arguments muna for theism or God’s existence, then arguments specific that show Christianity to be true. Ito ang key na distinctive ng classical apologetics when we compare it with the evidentialist approach. Sila Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley would argue kasi na meaningless ang argument if hindi preceded ang miracles ng natural theology. Norman Geisler agrees with this na dapat natural theology muna bago Christian evidences. An evidentialist kasi na apologist like Gary Habermas would differ in a sense that we don’t need natural theology to precede Christian evidences. We can use for example, ang resurrection ni Jesus as a starting point, and when we are able to show it to be true, it retrospectively shows that God exists and that Jesus’ message is credible. Ito ang key difference between classical and evidentialist apologetics though they agree on many parts.

In justifying classical apologetics in Scripture, Craig commented on kathoratai on Romans 1:20, which means clearly perceive and discern. Sabi niya na puwede ito mag indicate na involved ang inferential reasoning sa pag perceive ng invisible nature ni God sa creation. Basically ang inferential reasoning ay you reach a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence. Isa siyang proseso where we use our reason to see whether or not a proposition is true, which leads us to a rational na conclusion. A very close parallel daw ayon sa mga commentators ng Romans passage ay ang Hellenistic na work na Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-9 kung saan clearly in view ang inferential reasoning. Higit pa rito ay sa Acts 14:17 na kahit God allowed the Gentiles to go in their own way, He did not leave them without evidence or testimony, which is binubuo ng created order. Plausible raw ito na interpretation which shows na legitimate ang pag gamit ng natural theology. Sa pag show naman ng Christian faith to be true, he cited ang appeal ng gospel writers sa miracles and fulfilled prophecy ni Jesus to show ang veracity ng kanyang message. Ang example nito ay ang practice ni Jesus sa Luke 24:25–27 and John 14:11, and ang sermon ni Peter sa Acts 2:22-32. Aside from what we had talked about in showing Christianity to be true, it’s important to note na ang role ng Holy Spirit in showing Christianity to be true is not to supply ang pagkukulang natin sa ating mga arguments. What He does ay ang pag move sa heart ng unbelievers to weaken their sinful na prejudices and for them to open their minds to consider the arguments.

Now that we were able to talk about showing Christianity to be true and a brief scriptural basis sa method ng classical apologetics, let’s talk about knowing Christianity to be true which is based sa inner witness ng Holy Spirit. Ang role daw ng witness ng Holy Spirit ay self-authenticating. This means na intrinsic siya na defeater ng mga defeaters brought against our faith. Ang defeater basically is a belief na if true will show na another belief is false. This means na we don’t need additional arguments or evidence for us to know na we experience God’s Spirit. It’s an immediate experience and not a proposition, like the way we see a beautiful scenery which is hard to describe using words, pero we know na maganda ang nakita natin na scenery. Ang subjective na assurance na ito gives us objective knowledge of the truth and ang experience overwhelms ang mga arguments na thrown against us. Ang analogy which I could give ay if you witnessed a murder. Dahil you are a primary witness ay sure ka kung sino ang pumatay. Even if you were framed to make it seem na you committed ang murder, kahit gaano ka solid ang argumentation nila against you ay resolved ka in your heart na you did not commit the crime. One passage that show this witness ay ang Romans 8:15-17, “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Another ay ang Galatians 4:6, “Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” Ang role lamang ng argument and evidence in knowing Christianity to be true ay ang tinatawag ni Martin Luther na ang ministerial use of reason, which means na subordinate sa ating faith ang reason. This makes our faith secure in times na wala tayong evidence or argument for our faith.

In summary, we showed what classical apologetics is by showing yung distinction nito from evidential apologetics when we talked about showing Christianity to be true. We also talked briefly about yung scriptural basis for the practice. We also talked about yung knowing Christianity to be true na aspect ng classical apologetics to show na ang ultimate foundation ng faith ng isang Christian ay hindi based sa evidence ng arguments, kasi a Christian could still believe rationally kahit wala siyang access sa evidence and arguments. Next broadcast ay we will talk about arguments that show that God exists which will start on the contingency argument.

Photo Credit

Book Review: Joel Beeke's Family Worship || John Ricafrente Pesebre

BOOK REVIEW: Beeke, Joel. Family Worship. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002. 35 pages.

The Puritan divine Thomas Manton in his "Epistle to the Reader of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms” reveals the typical high regard of ministers long time ago on the role of the parents in the catechizing and discipling of their children. Elsewhere (https://thexparadigm4parents.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/thomas-manton-and-family-worship/), I have outlined Manton's said essay. Family worship is the theme of this book review and it focuses on Joel Beeke's booklet _Family Worship_. With the discipleship movement in overdrive in the Philippines, a more conservative appeal for family worship grounds this discipleship social action. Beeke is "President and Professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, pastor of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, editor of The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, and the author of numerous books" (Banner of Truth, website).

Beeke's booklet admonishes parents on the practice of family worship for Christian families. It focuses on persuading readers, most especially fathers, about the biblical foundation of family worship, why this is a duty and how to do it (the specifics up to the breakdown of time for the programme). Quite important is Beeke's last chapter on motivations as it zeroes in on existential reasons for the parents.

I find this booklet a fine introduction to a good library of books on family worship. But more importantly it is also an adequate beginner's guide on how to start family worship. Readers (most especially parents) will find in this booklet a sufficient explanation on the subject and a fine persuasive literature to start your own family worship. It is my hope that readers of this review will find time to check on Beeke's booklet that they can download here for free http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/FamilyWorship.pdf.

Is Homosexuality a Sin ONLY in the Old Testament || Omar Arellano

Last‌ ‌episode‌ ‌ay‌ ‌we‌ ‌talked‌ ‌about‌ ‌the‌ ‌question‌ ‌na‌ ‌if‌ ‌ang‌ ‌mere‌ ‌non-affirmation‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌LGBT‌ ‌
lifestyle‌ ‌would‌ ‌necessarily‌ ‌lead‌ ‌to‌ ‌suicide.‌ ‌We‌ ‌argued‌ ‌na‌ ‌ang‌ ‌mere‌ ‌affirmation‌ ‌will‌ ‌not‌ ‌cure‌ ‌the‌ ‌
problem‌ ‌at‌ ‌ang‌ ‌non-affirmation‌ ‌won’t‌ ‌necessarily‌ ‌lead‌ ‌to‌ ‌suicide.‌ ‌Ngayon‌ ‌naman‌ ‌ay‌ ‌we‌ ‌will‌ ‌talk‌ ‌
about‌ ‌homosexuality,‌ ‌if‌ ‌sin‌ ‌lang‌ ‌ba‌ ‌siya‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament.‌ ‌What‌ ‌we‌ ‌will‌ ‌do‌ ‌first‌ ‌is‌ ‌to‌ ‌discuss‌ ‌
their‌ ‌argument,‌ ‌then‌ ‌after‌ ‌ay‌ ‌we‌ ‌will‌ ‌show‌ ‌why‌ ‌their‌ ‌conclusion‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌follow.‌ ‌
 ‌
I‌ ‌remember‌ ‌a‌ ‌chemical‌ ‌engineering‌ ‌student‌ ‌from‌ ‌UP‌ ‌before‌ ‌who‌ ‌asked‌ ‌me‌ ‌about‌ ‌a‌ ‌post‌ ‌sa‌ ‌
Twitter.‌ ‌The‌ ‌guy‌ ‌asked‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌na‌ ‌against‌ ‌same-sex‌ ‌marriage‌ ‌bakit‌ ‌daw‌ ‌tayo‌ ‌nagsusuot‌ ‌ng‌ ‌
clothing‌ ‌na‌ ‌woven‌ ‌sa‌ ‌two‌ ‌kinds‌ ‌of‌ ‌material?‌ ‌Violation‌ ‌daw‌ ‌ito‌ ‌ng‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌19:19.‌ ‌Bakit‌ ‌din‌ ‌ba‌ ‌
raw‌ ‌tayo‌ ‌kumakain‌ ‌ng‌ ‌food‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌sea‌ ‌na‌ ‌walang‌ ‌fins‌ ‌and‌ ‌scales?‌ ‌Violation‌ ‌daw‌ ‌ito‌ ‌ng‌ ‌
Leviticus‌ ‌11:10.‌ ‌The‌ ‌problem‌ ‌na‌ ‌pinapakita‌ ‌ng‌ ‌person‌ ‌na‌ ‌ito‌ ‌is‌ ‌that‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌like‌ ‌us‌ ‌who‌ ‌are‌ ‌
against‌ ‌same-sex‌ ‌marriage‌ ‌are‌ ‌merely‌ ‌cherry‌ ‌picking‌ ‌verses‌ ‌and‌ ‌hindi‌ ‌raw‌ ‌natin‌ ‌talaga‌ ‌
sinusunod‌ ‌ang‌ ‌Bible.‌ ‌
 ‌
Another‌ ‌problem‌ ‌related‌ ‌here‌ ‌ay‌ ‌makikita‌ ‌sa‌ ‌comment‌ ‌ni‌ ‌Matthew‌ ‌Vines‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌na‌ ‌
passage.‌ ‌Sabi‌ ‌kasi‌ ‌ni‌ ‌Vines‌ ‌na‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Romans‌ ‌10:4‌ ‌ay‌ ‌si‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌daw‌ ‌ang‌ ‌end‌ ‌ng‌ ‌law.‌ ‌Ito‌ ‌raw‌ ‌ang‌ ‌
reason‌ ‌kung‌ ‌bakit‌ ‌karamihan‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌today‌ ‌ay‌ ‌kumakain‌ ‌ng‌ ‌meat,‌ ‌gumagamit‌ ‌ng‌ ‌credit‌ ‌
cards,‌ ‌nag-me-make-up,‌ ‌at‌ ‌nag‌ ‌support‌ ‌daw‌ ‌ng‌ ‌equality‌ ‌for‌ ‌women.‌ ‌Kasi‌ ‌raw‌ ‌ay‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Hebrews‌ ‌
8:13‌ ‌ay‌ ‌ang‌ ‌old‌ ‌law‌ ‌daw‌ ‌ay‌ ‌obsolete‌ ‌and‌ ‌aging.‌ ‌If‌ ‌we‌ ‌follow‌ ‌this‌ ‌logic,‌ ‌then‌ ‌this‌ ‌means‌ ‌na‌ ‌if‌ ‌
bawal‌ ‌ang‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌and‌ ‌if‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌fulfillment‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌law,‌ ‌then‌ ‌it‌ ‌
would‌ ‌show‌ ‌na‌ ‌ang‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌ay‌ ‌acceptable‌ ‌na‌ ‌raw‌ ‌sa‌ ‌New‌ ‌Testament.‌ ‌And‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌ay‌ ‌
hindi‌ ‌na‌ ‌raw‌ ‌sin.‌ ‌
 ‌
Though‌ ‌marami‌ ‌tayong‌ ‌puwede‌ ‌mapag-usapan‌ ‌sa‌ ‌mga‌ ‌statements‌ ‌na‌ ‌ito,‌ ‌let’s‌ ‌focus‌ ‌sa‌ ‌mga‌ ‌
objections‌ ‌na‌ ‌mas‌ ‌related‌ ‌sa‌ ‌homosexuality.‌ ‌Is‌ ‌it‌ ‌true‌ ‌na‌ ‌sin‌ ‌lamang‌ ‌ang‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Old‌ ‌
Testament?‌ ‌Let’s‌ ‌examine‌ ‌ang‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌laws‌ ‌in‌ ‌question‌ ‌and‌ ‌answer‌ ‌ang‌ ‌objections‌ ‌
related‌ ‌dun,‌ ‌then‌ ‌let’s‌ ‌talk‌ ‌about‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌being‌ ‌the‌ ‌fulfillment‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌law.‌ ‌
 ‌
Sa‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌law,‌ ‌it’s‌ ‌clear‌ ‌na‌ ‌the‌ ‌one‌ ‌who‌ ‌made‌ ‌the‌ ‌objection‌ ‌is‌ ‌not‌ ‌familiar‌ ‌with‌ ‌the‌ ‌
divisions‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Mosaic‌ ‌law.‌ ‌Mayroon‌ ‌kasing‌ ‌Civil‌ ‌Law‌ ‌na‌ ‌nawala‌ ‌after‌ ‌ng‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌theocracy,‌ ‌ang‌ ‌
Ceremonial‌ ‌Law‌ ‌na‌ ‌nawala‌ ‌dahil‌ ‌sa‌ ‌fulfillment‌ ‌ng‌ ‌work‌ ‌ni‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌as‌ ‌priest,‌ ‌and‌ ‌ang‌ ‌Moral‌ ‌law‌ ‌na‌ ‌
nag‌ ‌continue‌ ‌parin.‌ ‌Let’s‌ ‌examine‌ ‌ang‌ ‌objection‌ ‌about‌ ‌wearing‌ ‌clothing‌ ‌na‌ ‌may‌ ‌mixed‌ ‌fabrics‌ ‌
and‌ ‌also‌ ‌ang‌ ‌pagkain‌ ‌ng‌ ‌sea‌ ‌creatures‌ ‌na‌ ‌walang‌ ‌fins‌ ‌and‌ ‌scales.‌ ‌Sa‌ ‌objection‌ ‌na‌ ‌bawal‌ ‌tayo‌ ‌
magsuot‌ ‌ng‌ ‌clothing‌ ‌na‌ ‌woven‌ ‌sa‌ ‌two‌ ‌kinds‌ ‌of‌ ‌material‌ ‌na‌ ‌makikita‌ ‌natin‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌19,‌ ‌we‌ ‌
can‌ ‌see‌ ‌written‌ ‌sa‌ ‌verses‌ ‌1-2,‌ ‌“And‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌spoke‌ ‌to‌ ‌Moses,‌ ‌saying,‌ ‌“Speak‌ ‌to‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌
congregation‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌and‌ ‌say‌ ‌to‌ ‌them,‌ ‌You‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌holy,‌ ‌for‌ ‌I‌ ‌the‌ ‌LORD‌ ‌your‌ ‌God‌ ‌
am‌ ‌holy.”‌ ‌Holiness‌ ‌means‌ ‌na‌ ‌set‌ ‌apart,‌ ‌and‌ ‌though‌ ‌may‌ ‌aspects‌ ‌ng‌ ‌moral‌ ‌law‌ ‌sa‌ ‌passages,‌ ‌
there‌ ‌are‌ ‌aspects‌ ‌ng‌ ‌ceremonial‌ ‌law‌ ‌which‌ ‌is‌ ‌meant‌ ‌to‌ ‌show‌ ‌that‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌must‌ ‌be‌ ‌set‌ ‌apart‌ ‌
among‌ ‌the‌ ‌nations,‌ ‌which‌ ‌includes‌ ‌their‌ ‌agricultural‌ ‌practice‌ ‌and‌ ‌their‌ ‌clothing‌ ‌sa‌ ‌verse‌ ‌19.‌ ‌
Tapos‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌11:10‌ ‌naman‌ ‌na‌ ‌passage‌ ‌na‌ ‌may‌ ‌kinalaman‌ ‌sa‌ ‌seafood,‌ ‌we‌ ‌could‌ ‌see‌ ‌sa‌ ‌
verse‌ ‌1-2,‌ ‌“And‌ ‌the‌ ‌LORD‌ ‌spoke‌ ‌to‌ ‌Moses‌ ‌and‌ ‌Aaron,‌ ‌saying‌ ‌to‌ ‌them,‌ ‌“Speak‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌
Israel,‌ ‌saying,‌ ‌These‌ ‌are‌ ‌the‌ ‌living‌ ‌things‌ ‌that‌ ‌you‌ ‌may‌ ‌eat‌ ‌among‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌animals‌ ‌that‌ ‌are‌ ‌on‌ ‌the‌ ‌
earth.”‌ ‌This‌ ‌means‌ ‌na‌ ‌ang‌ ‌command‌ ‌na‌ ‌ito‌ ‌ay‌ ‌specific‌ ‌lamang‌ ‌for‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌nation‌ ‌na‌ ‌set‌ ‌apart‌ ‌
for‌ ‌the‌ ‌LORD.‌ ‌This‌ ‌makes‌ ‌sense‌ ‌in‌ ‌light‌ ‌of‌ ‌Acts‌ ‌10:9-28‌ ‌kung‌ ‌saan‌ ‌tinanggal‌ ‌ang‌ ‌restrictions‌ ‌in‌ ‌
light‌ ‌of‌ ‌Peter’s‌ ‌vision.‌ ‌Sa‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌naman‌ ‌makikita‌ ‌natin‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌18:22‌ ‌ay‌ ‌sabi,‌ ‌“You‌ ‌
shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌lie‌ ‌with‌ ‌a‌ ‌male‌ ‌as‌ ‌with‌ ‌a‌ ‌woman;‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌an‌ ‌abomination.”‌ ‌Ang‌ ‌difference‌ ‌nito‌ ‌sa‌ ‌previous‌ ‌
passages‌ ‌na‌ ‌mentioned‌ ‌natin‌ ‌ay‌ ‌when‌ ‌God‌ ‌talked‌ ‌about‌ ‌unlawful‌ ‌sexual‌ ‌relations,‌ ‌God‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌
talk‌ ‌as‌ ‌if‌ ‌it‌ ‌only‌ ‌pertains‌ ‌to‌ ‌Israel.‌ ‌Sa‌ ‌verse‌ ‌3‌ ‌ay‌ ‌sabi,‌ ‌“You‌ ‌shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌do‌ ‌as‌ ‌they‌ ‌do‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌land‌ ‌of‌ ‌
Egypt,‌ ‌where‌ ‌you‌ ‌lived,‌ ‌and‌ ‌you‌ ‌shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌do‌ ‌as‌ ‌they‌ ‌do‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌land‌ ‌of‌ ‌Canaan,‌ ‌to‌ ‌which‌ ‌I‌ ‌am‌ ‌
bringing‌ ‌you.‌ ‌You‌ ‌shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌walk‌ ‌in‌ ‌their‌ ‌statutes.‌ ‌Sabi‌ ‌rin‌ ‌sa‌ ‌verses‌ ‌24-30,‌ ‌“Do‌ ‌not‌ ‌make‌ ‌
yourselves‌ ‌unclean‌ ‌by‌ ‌any‌ ‌of‌ ‌these‌ ‌things,‌ ‌for‌ ‌by‌ ‌all‌ ‌these‌ ‌the‌ ‌nations‌ ‌I‌ ‌am‌ ‌driving‌ ‌out‌ ‌before‌ ‌
you‌ ‌have‌ ‌become‌ ‌unclean,‌ ‌so‌ ‌that‌ ‌I‌ ‌punished‌ ‌its‌ ‌iniquity,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌land‌ ‌vomited‌ ‌out‌ ‌its‌ ‌
inhabitants.‌ ‌But‌ ‌you‌ ‌shall‌ ‌keep‌ ‌my‌ ‌statutes‌ ‌and‌ ‌my‌ ‌rules‌ ‌and‌ ‌do‌ ‌none‌ ‌of‌ ‌these‌ ‌abominations,‌ ‌
either‌ ‌the‌ ‌native‌ ‌or‌ ‌the‌ ‌stranger‌ ‌who‌ ‌sojourns‌ ‌among‌ ‌you‌ ‌(for‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌land,‌ ‌who‌ ‌were‌ ‌
before‌ ‌you,‌ ‌did‌ ‌all‌ ‌of‌ ‌these‌ ‌abominations,‌ ‌so‌ ‌that‌ ‌the‌ ‌land‌ ‌became‌ ‌unclean)‌ ‌lest‌ ‌the‌ ‌land‌ ‌vomit‌ ‌
you‌ ‌out‌ ‌when‌ ‌you‌ ‌make‌ ‌it‌ ‌unclean,‌ ‌as‌ ‌it‌ ‌vomited‌ ‌out‌ ‌the‌ ‌nation‌ ‌that‌ ‌was‌ ‌before‌ ‌you.‌ ‌For‌ ‌
everyone‌ ‌who‌ ‌does‌ ‌any‌ ‌of‌ ‌these‌ ‌abominations,‌ ‌the‌ ‌persons‌ ‌who‌ ‌do‌ ‌them‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌cut‌ ‌off‌ ‌from‌ ‌
among‌ ‌their‌ ‌people.‌ ‌So‌ ‌keep‌ ‌my‌ ‌charge‌ ‌never‌ ‌to‌ ‌practice‌ ‌any‌ ‌of‌ ‌these‌ ‌abominable‌ ‌customs‌ ‌that‌ ‌
were‌ ‌practiced‌ ‌before‌ ‌you,‌ ‌and‌ ‌never‌ ‌to‌ ‌make‌ ‌yourselves‌ ‌unclean‌ ‌by‌ ‌them:‌ ‌I‌ ‌am‌ ‌the‌ ‌LORD‌ ‌your‌ ‌
God.”‌ ‌In‌ ‌light‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌above‌ ‌passages‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌18,‌ ‌puwede‌ ‌natin‌ ‌na‌ ‌ma-conclude‌ ‌na‌ ‌lahat‌ ‌ng‌ ‌
unlawful‌ ‌sexual‌ ‌relations‌ ‌na‌ ‌binanggit‌ ‌ng‌ ‌Diyos‌ ‌ay‌ ‌sinful‌ ‌against‌ ‌Him‌ ‌regardless‌ ‌kung‌ ‌saang‌ ‌
nation‌ ‌ka‌ ‌kabilang.‌ ‌Ito‌ ‌ay‌ ‌dahil‌ ‌ang‌ ‌mga‌ ‌unlawful‌ ‌na‌ ‌relasyon‌ ‌na‌ ‌ito‌ ‌ang‌ ‌dahilan‌ ‌kung‌ ‌bakit‌ ‌ni‌ ‌
God‌ ‌papaalisin‌ ‌ang‌ ‌mga‌ ‌nation‌ ‌na‌ ‌ito.‌ ‌Pinarusahan‌ ‌sila‌ ‌dahil‌ ‌sa‌ ‌kanilang‌ ‌defilement.‌ ‌Ang‌ ‌law‌ ‌
na‌ ‌ito‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌ay‌ ‌hindi‌ ‌lang‌ ‌for‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌pero‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌world,‌ ‌kung‌ ‌saan‌ ‌kasama‌ ‌ang‌ ‌
homosexuality‌ ‌sa‌ ‌nag‌ ‌cause‌ ‌ng‌ ‌defilement.‌ ‌I’ll‌ ‌mention‌ ‌ulit‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌18:22‌ ‌for‌ ‌emphasis,‌ ‌“You‌ ‌
shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌lie‌ ‌with‌ ‌a‌ ‌male‌ ‌as‌ ‌with‌ ‌a‌ ‌woman;‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌an‌ ‌abomination.”‌ ‌The‌ ‌word‌ ‌abomination‌ ‌there‌ ‌is‌ ‌
the‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌noun‌ ‌to’evah‌ ‌which‌ ‌means‌ ‌“detestable‌ ‌and‌ ‌abhorrent”.‌ ‌Hindi‌ ‌siya‌ ‌merely‌ ‌“taboo”‌ ‌as‌ ‌
some‌ ‌“gay‌ ‌Christians”‌ ‌would‌ ‌say.‌ ‌Dr.‌ ‌Michael‌ ‌Brown‌ ‌cited‌ ‌the‌ ‌authoritative‌ ‌
Koehler-Baumgartner‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌and‌ ‌Aramaic‌ ‌Lexicon‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌to‌ ‌show‌ ‌this‌ ‌further.‌ ‌
Based‌ ‌sa‌ ‌work‌ ‌na‌ ‌iyon‌ ‌ay‌ ‌ang‌ ‌phrase‌ ‌na‌ ‌“the‌ ‌abhorrent‌ ‌customs”‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌18‌ ‌refers‌ ‌sa‌ ‌
“abhorrent‌ ‌customs‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Canaanites,‌ ‌by‌ ‌which‌ ‌is‌ ‌meant‌ ‌in‌ ‌particular‌ ‌sexual‌ ‌perversity”.‌ ‌Dr.‌ ‌
Brown‌ ‌said‌ ‌na‌ ‌in‌ ‌light‌ ‌of‌ ‌that‌ ‌ay‌ ‌it‌ ‌speaks‌ ‌certainly‌ ‌of‌ ‌moral‌ ‌violations.‌ ‌
 ‌
 ‌As‌ ‌a‌ ‌summary,‌ ‌ang‌ ‌pagkain‌ ‌ng‌ ‌sea‌ ‌creatures‌ ‌and‌ ‌pagsuot‌ ‌ng‌ ‌clothing‌ ‌na‌ ‌may‌ ‌mixed‌ ‌fabrics‌ ‌ay‌ ‌
part‌ ‌ng‌ ‌ceremonial‌ ‌law‌ ‌ng‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌which‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌fulfilled‌ ‌as‌ ‌our‌ ‌great‌ ‌high‌ ‌priest.‌ ‌Ang‌ ‌sacrificial‌ ‌
system‌ ‌ay‌ ‌part‌ ‌of‌ ‌this.‌ ‌The‌ ‌human‌ ‌high‌ ‌priests‌ ‌would‌ ‌make‌ ‌sacrifices‌ ‌to‌ ‌temporarily‌ ‌cover‌ ‌the‌ ‌
sins‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌until‌ ‌the‌ ‌Messiah‌ ‌would‌ ‌come.‌ ‌Jesus‌ ‌the‌ ‌Messiah‌ ‌came‌ ‌and‌ ‌offered‌ ‌Himself‌ ‌
as‌ ‌a‌ ‌sacrifice‌ ‌once‌ ‌and‌ ‌for‌ ‌all.‌ ‌Since‌ ‌Jesus‌ ‌fulfilled‌ ‌the‌ ‌ceremonial‌ ‌law‌ ‌ay‌ ‌we‌ ‌no‌ ‌longer‌ ‌offer‌ ‌
animal‌ ‌sacrifices‌ ‌which‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌did‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament.‌ ‌Dahil‌ ‌part‌ ‌ng‌ ‌ceremonial‌ ‌law‌ ‌ang‌ ‌hindi‌ ‌
pagkain‌ ‌ng‌ ‌sea‌ ‌creatures‌ ‌na‌ ‌walang‌ ‌fins‌ ‌and‌ ‌scales‌ ‌and‌ ‌wearing‌ ‌mixed‌ ‌fabrics,‌ ‌then‌ ‌we‌ ‌are‌ ‌no‌ ‌
longer‌ ‌required‌ ‌to‌ ‌obey‌ ‌it.‌ ‌Ang‌ ‌unlawful‌ ‌sexual‌ ‌relations‌ ‌sa‌ ‌Leviticus‌ ‌18‌ ‌ay‌ ‌hindi‌ ‌lamang‌ ‌limited‌ ‌
sa‌ ‌Israel,‌ ‌hence,‌ ‌ito‌ ‌ay‌ ‌part‌ ‌ng‌ ‌moral‌ ‌law.‌ ‌Unlike‌ ‌the‌ ‌civil‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌ceremonial‌ ‌law‌ ‌na‌ ‌limited‌ ‌
based‌ ‌sa‌ ‌specific‌ ‌time‌ ‌period,‌ ‌the‌ ‌moral‌ ‌law‌ ‌reflects‌ ‌the‌ ‌character‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌which‌ ‌is‌ ‌eternal‌ ‌and‌ ‌
doesn’t‌ ‌change.‌ ‌This‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌reason‌ ‌why‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌is‌ ‌still‌ ‌a‌ ‌sin‌ ‌today‌ ‌and‌ ‌forever.‌ ‌Therefore,‌ ‌
true‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌are‌ ‌not‌ ‌picking‌ ‌and‌ ‌choosing‌ ‌which‌ ‌passage‌ ‌to‌ ‌practice‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible,‌ ‌and‌ ‌that‌ ‌
Christ‌ ‌being‌ ‌the‌ ‌fulfillment‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌mean‌ ‌na‌ ‌hindi‌ ‌na‌ ‌sin‌ ‌ang‌ ‌homosexuality‌ ‌ngayon.‌ ‌ ‌
 ‌
To‌ ‌conclude‌ ‌our‌ ‌discussion,‌ ‌I‌ ‌would‌ ‌like‌ ‌to‌ ‌end‌ ‌with‌ ‌this‌ ‌passage‌ ‌from‌ ‌1‌ ‌Corinthians‌ ‌6:9-11,‌ ‌“‌Or‌ ‌
do‌ ‌you‌ ‌not‌ ‌know‌ ‌that‌ ‌wrongdoers‌ ‌will‌ ‌not‌ ‌inherit‌ ‌the‌ ‌kingdom‌ ‌of‌ ‌God?‌ ‌Do‌ ‌not‌ ‌be‌ ‌deceived:‌ ‌
Neither‌ ‌the‌ ‌sexually‌ ‌immoral‌ ‌nor‌ ‌idolaters‌ ‌nor‌ ‌adulterers‌ ‌nor‌ ‌men‌ ‌who‌ ‌have‌ ‌sex‌ ‌with‌ ‌men‌‌ ‌‌nor‌ ‌
thieves‌ ‌nor‌ ‌the‌ ‌greedy‌ ‌nor‌ ‌drunkards‌ ‌nor‌ ‌slanderers‌ ‌nor‌ ‌swindlers‌ ‌will‌ ‌inherit‌ ‌the‌ ‌kingdom‌ ‌of‌ ‌
God.‌ ‌And‌ ‌that‌ ‌is‌ ‌what‌ ‌some‌ ‌of‌ ‌you‌ ‌were.‌ ‌But‌ ‌you‌ ‌were‌ ‌washed,‌ ‌you‌ ‌were‌ ‌sanctified,‌ ‌you‌ ‌were‌ ‌
justified‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌name‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌Jesus‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌and‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Spirit‌ ‌of‌ ‌our‌ ‌God.”‌

Does the Christian's Non-Affirmation of the LGBT Lifestyle Necessarily Lead to LGBT Suicide || Omar Arellano

Ayon sa Rappler ay ang Metro Manila Pride March daw ang pinakamalaking demonstration ng Pride na makikita sa Southeast Asia. Dahil sa growing movement ng LGBT Activism around the world, and also dahil sa access sa internet ay dumarami ang sumasama sa movement na ito. Malakas din ang influence ng LGBT Activism na ito even sa University of the Philippines Diliman where I serve, kasi ay maraming students ang vocal in support sa ganitong kind of activism. Even professing Christians are influenced to agree. Nevertheless, ay God has an amazing purpose for marriage and family. And in a world that is rebelling against God, siyempre we are tempted to compromise our convictions. Regardless, ay we as Christians are called to speak the truth. We must speak this truth for the good of our souls, and also for the good of the souls of our fellow men. The Philippines needs the proclamation of the person and work of Christ!

Dahil dito ay we selected common objections na puwede natin ma-encounter about sa usapin about LGBT Activism. It’s my hope na ang pag-uusapan natin would encourage us Christians in standing firm. And also if mayroon man na mga LGBT people na nakikinig ay that they would really come to know Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. To start our series ay I will start to discuss the objection na ang non-affirmation of the LGBT lifestyle necessarily leads to suicide. What I’ll do first is to lay down muna ang background information related dito for us to see the picture of what is behind their objection, then I’ll give insights in response doon.

Dr. Michael Brown wrote a commentary which talks about sharing God’s goodness. He talked about a local lesbian activist na nakasama niya kumain and said na she experienced radical love sa kanilang interactions. May activist din na nag hold ng protest sa labas ng church nila and nag apologize ito afterwards dahil na meet daw niya ang perfect love of God through the church. The point of the commentary is to show na sharing God’s goodness is never a failure, and he said na open sila for people from the LGBT to meet and dialog with them. In that article ay makikita natin si Ryan Kingston na sinabi in response kay Dr. Brown ay, “Yes you do contribute to the harm of many in the gay community through your short sided views. Just because you are “polite” or have good intentions does not mean what you say is not damaging. When we have kids not taking their own lives because they are gay then we can sit down and have a friendly debate about this subject. Until then you may want to shut up and do more listening than talking.” Aside from this sentiment na damaging ang message natin for LGBT people, we can see na ang narrative na propagated is that LGBT people commit suicide dahil sa religious conviction ng people they love. One example ay relationship between parents and children, like sa Prayers for Bobby na movie. Here is a quote from the plot summary of the movie:

Bobby Griffith was his mother's favorite son, the perfect all-American boy growing up under deeply religious influences in Walnut Creek, California. Bobby was also gay. Struggling with a conflict no one knew of much less understood Bobby finally came out to his family. Despite the tentative support of his father, two sisters, and older brother, Bobby's mother, Mary, turned to the fundamentalist teachings of her church to rescue her son from what she felt was an irredeemable sin. As Mary came closer to the realization that Bobby could not be "healed," she rejected him, denying him a mother's unconditional love, and driving her favorite son to suicide.

Accounts like this make people think na indeed Christians are judgemental and homophobic. And unfortunately, I agree na there are Christians na talagang judgemental and homophobic ang reaction against sa LGBTs. I would like to say na this is indeed wrong based on God’s Word. Nevertheless, I would say na even if it’s true na homophobic and judgemental ang some Christians ay it doesn’t follow that Christians ought to affirm ang LGBT lifestyle. Sinasabi nila na we should affirm their lifestyle, kasi if we don’t affirm their lifestyle ay this is the reason why they kill themselves. How should we respond to this?

As I’m thinking of not affirming the LGBT lifestyle will lead to suicide, this reminded me of Dr. Michael Brown’s statement pertaining sa black people in America. Let me read it for you:

But please allow me to get more controversial still. During the days of harsh segregation here in America, when blacks were treated far worse than gays were treated one generation ago, did you hear about an epidemic of black suicides? Did you hear about all the young blacks in the schools who were robbed of hope and dignity and were taking their own lives? And did you hear black leaders raise the scepter of the suicide of black youths over the nation, warning them that if America didn’t change its racist ways these kids would take their own lives? Obviously not. Why? Because these young African Americans were encouraged to be strong, to take a stand, to refuse to be intimidated, to make a determination that they would live with dignity even when society degraded them, and to work toward a better and brighter future.

Si Dr. Paul McHugh naman, which is a distinguished professor of Psychiatry sa Johns Hopkins Hospital wanted to see sa study nila if people who had sex-change surgery will find resolution sa kanilang psychological problems. And sabi niya in light of the study ay as I quote,

He found that most of the patients he tracked down some years after their surgery were contented with what they had done and that only a few regretted it. But in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.

Regarding the blacks ay though they were persecuted by virtue of the color of their skin, instead of committing suicide ay they learned resilience. And we could see from Dr. McHugh’s assessment ay even if the patient’s got what they wanted ay they are still experiencing the same psychological problems. Somehow this gives us a clue na complex ang discussion and may other factors at work na nag lead sa suicide ng LGBT people. It would be irresponsible for people to say na mere affirmation of LGBT lifestyle would cure their problem, and mere non-affirmation is the cause of suicide. In light of this ay we can still give them hope in their life without affirming their lifestyle, one example ay instead of parents removing their unconditional love for their child as seen sa plot ng Prayers for Bobby na movie, parents could respond sa gay child nila in love. I loved Michael Brown’s remark related to this. Sabi niya, “I’m asked by parents what to do when their child comes out as gay, I tell them this: Sit down with them and say, “You know that we don’t believe that God made you gay or that homosexuality is His will, but we want to make it clear to you that we love you unconditionally, that you are our child no matter what, that we will always be here for you, that we are totally committed to you, that we want to be involved in your life, and that what you shared with us doesn’t change your relationship with us or diminish our love for you in any way.” After that I encourage them not to bring the subject up to their child but rather to pray for him or her and demonstrate that unconditional love.” Our desires don’t define our identity. God’s Word does. In this world na fallen, it would make sense na our desires may be contrary to God’s design. And since LGBT people are made in the image of God ay we must respond to them with love and respect. This means na we treat them the same way we respectfully treat heterosexuals. And to love them means na we don’t affirm their lifestyle.  As our friends, we can encourage them to be strong sa journey nila in life so that by God’s common grace ay through our encouragement ay LGBT people will benefit society as a whole. Aside from this ay ultimately, more than earthly benefits ay we share with them what will benefit their souls because we love them. This means that we tell them the truth that they need Christ. The same way na all of us are sinners and we need Christ. May this encourage us as Christians to unapologetically recognize truth from error in this age, make proper moral judgements and also proclaim the gospel no matter what.

Photo Credit: Rappler

Does God Hate Persons With Disabilities? (Part 2): On The Allegation of Divine Ableism in the Senate Hearing on SOGIE (Part 2) || 4H Apologetics

Photo Credit: Mel Cortez

This episode was aired as a 10-minute segment on September 19, 2019 (7:00PM) at 702 DZAS' Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines

Nagse-segue po tayo galing sa sinimulan nating apologetics series on slavery, murder, sexism, etc na mga allegations against the Bible using the Bible pa against itself, at tinutugunan ‘yung pressing issues concerning the Bible as you might have heard it sa recent na Senate Hearing on SOGIE nung September 4. Hindi po natin tatalakayin ang SOGIE sa ilang segue series na ito dahil tatalakayin po ‘yan ng ating guest teacher na si Bro. Omar sa October. What we will talk about sa segue series na ito is yung mga declarations nung mga pro-SOGIE religious people patungkol sa Bible. A lot of conservative Christians I know expressed their concerns sa mga declarations na ito at minarapat nating bigyan pa ng voice and representation itong concern na ito dito sa episode na ito. In doing so, I hope na mabigyan ng grammar o expression ang criticism ng mga conservative na may high-view ng Scripture sa publiko sa pamamagitan ng broadcast na ito. Lasat episode we started our critique sa sinabi nung gay Aglipayan na ang Bible o essentially ang Diyos ay discriminatory against sa mga disabled people with Leviticus 21:16-23 na kaniyang proof. The verses say ganito –

16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17 "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, 19 or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, 23 only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, that he may not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them." (NAS)

So last episode we started our refutation that included the practical point na ang verses na ito pertains to temple priests and that God was putting job-related qualifications. I also mentioned na sa Labor Code natin allowed ang mga job related qualifications na binibigay ng employer. And we will continue today. You can check out ‘yung part 1 sa FB page ng Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo under the title “Does God Hate Disabled People? (Part 1).

May iba namang theologians ang nagsasabi na –

The reason that might have made sense to the Israelites was that like the sacrifices they offered that had to be perfect, so the priests who offered them had to be “perfect” in order to please God. They would certainly have also had some idea that a perfect sacrifice was representative of the need for a blameless substitute for their sin and guilt. When they offered the animal in their place it was the “just” for the unjust that was being offered. Likewise, the priest who offered it could not be “unjust” symbolically speaking, but needed to be perfect to get the desired result – forgiveness from God.*

More on this po later. But we transition muna sa danger ng sinabi nitong gay Aglipayan sa view natin ng Diyos. Napaka-disconcerting that the gay Aglipayan would use this as an argument for the discriminatory practice in the Bible for it is not so. We are concerned dito kasi ang ultimate na naapektuhan ay ang view natin ng Diyos na tila baga walang pagkalinga sa may mga kapansanan. That is an idol. A god that has no concern for the disabled is an idol. Sabi po ni Randall Johnson,

God uses the disabilities in our lives and the comfort He teaches us to find in the midst of our disabilities to give us something to share with others in their disabilities. Our disabilities become one source of our ministry in the lives of others. We can identify with those who have our same disabilities and offer them what God offered us with a passion and believability that no one else can. ✝️

So if God is a God who has concern for the disabled, si Jesus din po ganon din. In fact ang Leviticus 21:16-23 ay preparation for God’s --

people to receive the real and ultimate sacrifice for our sins and high priest to offer the sacrifice – Jesus Christ. The symbols of the Old Testament rituals were symbols of Jesus and how his sacrifice was of a truly sinless substitute for our truly sinful selves. . . Consequently this passage says nothing about the way God views people with disabilities in any personal sense. Jesus’ willingness to touch and heal many who had severe disabilities and illnesses is proof that God loves all of us. We are all disabled in many ways, spiritually, emotionally and physically. We cannot come to God on the basis of how “together” we are. I come “just as I am, without one plea, but that His blood was shed for me. ☨

Ako po ay isang PWD. Hindi po madali para sa isang may kapansanan ang magkaroon palagi ng positive na outlook sa buhay. Maraming bagay na dati mong nagagawa ay hindi mo na nagagawa. Ang Salita po ng Diyos ang nagsisilbing ordinary means ng Diyos to minister to me in my time of prayer and study. Kaya naman na-alarm talaga ako sa sinabi nung gay Aglipayan sa senate hearing kasi for Christians na may disability, ang Bible ang oasis mo to read about God’s mercy and strength and hope and peace at marami pang iba.

Tayo po kasi minsan na mga believers oftentimes ang tinatakbuhan natin ay ibang bagay at hindi ang Diyos at ang Kaniyang Salita. So kung kayo po ay may mga kapansanan, all the more you have a friend in Jesus that you will encounter in the Words of Scriptures with the ministration of the Holy Spirit.

________________________

* Randall Johnson, "What does Leviticus 21:16-23 mean for those who are disabled?" Ask the Pastors (online); available at https://askthepastors.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/what-does-leviticus-2116-23-mean-for-those-who-are-disabled/.

✝️ Ibid.

☨ Ibid

_________________________

Ang episode na ito ay naka pattern sa 4H Apologetics method na dinivelop ng inyong lingkod. Ang pagbabasa at pagsusuri nito ay isa sa mga paraan upang lalo kayong masanay sa 4H Apologetics kung ito ang inyong pakay. Mahalaga na tayo'y manood o makinig ng mga "big game" apologetics na hatid ng mga tulad nila Ravi Zacarias o William Lane Craig subalit baka tulad ng panonood ng NBA o PBA marunong tayo mag appreciate pero 'pag tayo na ang gagawa ay nangangapa tayo. Pagyamanin natin ang ating sarili sa tungkuling ito ng pag-a-apologetics.

Does God Hate Persons With Disabilities? (Part 1): On The Allegation of Divine Ableism in the Senate Hearing on SOGIE || 4H APOLOGETICS

This episode was aired as a 10-minute segment on September 17, 2019 (7:00PM) at 702 DZAS' Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines

NOTE: Ableism is "discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities."

Nagse-segue po tayo galing sa sinimulan nating apologetics series on slavery, murder, sexism, etc na mga allegations against the Bible using the Bible pa against itself, at lilipat muna po tayo para tugunan ‘yung pressing issues concerning the Bible as you might have heard it sa recent na Senate Hearing on SOGIE nung September 4. Hindi po natin tatalakayin ang SOGIE sa ilang segue series na ito dahil tatalakayin po ‘yan ng ating guest teacher na si Bro. Omar sa October. What we will talk about sa segue series na ito is yung mga declarations nung mga pro-SOGIE religious people patungkol sa Bible. A lot of conservative Christians I know expressed their concerns sa mga declarations na ito at minarapat nating bigyan pa ng voice and representation itong concern na ito dito sa episode na ito. In doing so, I hope na mabigyan ng grammar o expression ang criticism ng mga conservative na may high-view ng Scripture sa publiko sa pamamagitan ng broadcast na ito. We dealt first gay na kababayan natin na may mga declarations concerning the Bible’s misogyny, low regard for disabled people and slavery. Tapos na po ‘yung sa misoginy at kung nais po ninyong ma-access ‘yung manuscript niya, punta lang po kayo sa fb page na Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo.

The second verse na binanggit niya, reading from his notes, ay "Leviticus 21", referring to verses 16-23 (and I will read these verses maya-maya) na nagsasabing "deformed people are not permitted to approach the altar." This is the same support he presented to exclude the Bible as a "definitive guide" for rights, accordingly persons-with-disability (PWD) rights. He strongly suggests that Scripture is discriminatory to PWD and is in no way morally definitive. Ito ang pangalawa sa mga reasons niya to put the Bible out of the discussion concerning the SOGIE kasi hindi daw dapat isama sa usapan ang isang document na discriminatory when we are talking about a bill that is designed to be anti-discriminatory.

Hindi extensive ang literature na denunciatory sa Bible sa area na ito pero may ilang mga forum ang maari ninyong masumpungan na ganito ang sinasabi --

This verse [ie Leviticus 21]speaks for itself and shows that the God of the Old Testament is nothing more than an invention of the people of that time. This law would discriminate against Franklin Roosevelt, Stephen Hawking, Benjamin Franklin, Hellen Keller, Louis Braille, Galileo Galilei and all people who wear glasses, Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, and many others. . . It is a shame that so many Christians still willingly worship an invisible being that is so obviously a product of the imaginations of the men of ancient times.*

This interpretation if true ay malinaw pa po sa sikat ng araw na ang Bibliya ay nagdi discriminate nga. Sa panahon natin ngayon most especially sa The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, or Republic Act No. 7277 prescribes that “no disabled persons shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment, and that a qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person.” Kaya naman itong information na ito na binigay nung gay Aglipayan ay damning sa Christianity, if not the Bible . . . that is kung totoo nga. At kung totoo nga, we are better off removing the Bible sa kung anumang discussion on anti-discrimination and equality.

However, ganon nga ba ang tinuturo ng Bibliya starting from Leviticus 21:16-23 concerning persons with disability o PWD?

I quote here lengthily (kasi kasama 'yung verses) Douglas Jacoby to explain 'yung minali nung gay Aglipayan --

But is the discriminating in view [ie Leviticus 21:16-23] necessarily wrong? In this section of Leviticus the Lord gives strict regulations for the priesthood. And there are many more! Was it 'ageism' that the Lord had priests retire from service at 50 years of age (Numbers 8:25), or, for that matter, that young men were not counted in the army--and presumably not allowed to fight--unless they were at least 20 years of age (Numbers 1:3)? Yet the Lord has his reasons, whether or not we understand and appreciate them. But let's look again at the passage in question: 16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17 "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, 19 or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, 23 only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, that he may not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them." (NAS)✝️

Ayon po sa ating resource, hindi na daw po dapat dagdagan pa ang napakaraming pressures ng pagmiministeryo sa harapan ng Diyos – kasama na dito ‘yung kahirapan ng paglilingkod na may kahadlangan ng mga physical deformities (halimbawa ay ang pagkabulag) o yung emotional strain na malimit kaakibat sa kaisipan ng tao sa presensiya ng iba (halimbawa, ay yung dwarf). Ang mga kwalipikasyong ito ay may mga praktical na dahilan.  Even on the law I quoted earlier ‘yung Republic Act 7277 ay mayroon ding exceptions na job related. Ang sabi niya sa Prohibition on Discrimination Against Disabled Persons, section 32, paragraph b under “The following constitute acts of discrimination: . . . Using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a disabled person unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job related for the position on question and are consistent with business necessity.”

Babalikan po natin ang continuation o part 2 ng pagtalakay nito sa susunod na episode kasi po kulang po tayo sa limited nating oras.

Photo Credit.
__________________________
*   "God Discriminates Against the Handicapped," Bible Verses Rarely Read on Sunday (online); available at https://rarebible.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/god-discriminates-against-the-handicapped/.

✝️ Douglas Jacoby, "Q&A 0995 – Leviticus 21 – Deformities in the presence of God," Douglas Jacoby (online); available at https://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-0995-leviticus-21-deformities-in-the-presence-of-god/.

Ang episode na ito ay naka pattern sa 4H Apologetics method na dinivelop ng inyong lingkod. Ang pagbabasa at pagsusuri nito ay isa sa mga paraan upang lalo kayong masanay sa 4H Apologetics kung ito ang inyong pakay. Mahalaga na tayo'y manood o makinig ng mga "big game" apologetics na hatid ng mga tulad nila Ravi Zacarias o William Lane Craig subalit baka tulad ng panonood ng NBA o PBA marunong tayo mag appreciate pero 'pag tayo na ang gagawa ay nangangapa tayo. Pagyamanin natin ang ating sarili sa tungkuling ito ng pag-a-apologetics. 

Does God Hate Women? (Part 2): On the Allegation of Divine Misogyny at the Senate Hearing on SOGIE || 4H Apologetics

This episode was aired as a 10-minute segment on September 12, 2019 (7:00PM) at 702 DZAS' Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines


Ipagpapatuloy po natin ang ating segue series palayo muna sa sinimulan nating apologetics series on slavery, murder, sexism, etc na mga allegations against the Bible using the Bible pa against itself, at lilipat muna po tayo para tugunan ‘yung pressing issues concerning the Bible as you might have heard it sa recent na Senate Hearing on SOGIE nung September 4. Hindi po natin tatalakayin ang SOGIE sa ilang segue series na ito dahil tatalakayin po ‘yan ng ating guest teacher na si Bro. Omar sa October. What we will talk about sa segue series na ito is yung mga declarations nung mga pro-SOGIE religious people patungkol sa Bible. A lot of conservative Christians I know expressed their concerns sa mga declarations na ito at minarapat nating bigyan pa ng voice and representation itong concern na ito dito sa episode na ito. In doing so, I hope na mabigyan ng grammar o expression ang criticism ng mga conservative na may high-view ng Scripture sa publiko sa pamamagitan ng broadcast na ito. We will first deal with the theology nung gay na Aglipayan and his declarations concerning the Bible’s misogyny, low regard for disabled people and slavery. We will start with part 1 today and part 2 next on the issue of misogyny.

Last episode po we provided some refutations sa declarations nung gay Aglipayan; you can check out the manuscript of that episode sa FB page na Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (you can access that article here http://nabuenyo.blogspot.com/2019/09/does-god-hate-women-on-allegation-of.html). Ngayon po we will marshall positive apologetics.

We raise this issue that the gay Aglipayan presented kasi may level pa ng attack hindi lang sa Christianity but on the nature of God Himself: that He is a misogynist. As was mentioned Part 1, hindi po misogynist ang Diyos.

This allegation of misogyny ay mahalaga talagang i-address nating mga believers in relation sa Bible at pananampalataya natin. Ayon sa GotQuestions.org --

A misogynist is a person who hates or looks down on women. The term misogyny generally refers to attitudes and behaviors that degrade, insult, or abuse women on the basis of their gender. Examples of misogyny would be treating women as morally or intellectually inferior to men, allowing for female abuse, or referring to women using hateful or abusive language. Critics of Christianity sometimes claim there is misogyny in the Bible, but such claims are contradicted by both the Scriptures and history.＊

Tuloy pa ng GotQuestions.org --

Misogyny is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. According to Scripture, all people are absolutely equal in the eyes of God regardless of gender, race, and ability (Galatians 3:28).  . . . [W]omen were treated as valued and respected persons . . . The early church not only attracted women followers (Acts 8:12; 17:12), but many of them were instrumental in the proclamation of the gospel (Philippians 4:3).✝️

Salungat sa pinaparatang ng gay Aglipayan sa senate hearing, ang katuruan ng Diyos sa Kaniyang Salita ay hindi patungo sa misogyny but for women's honor and upliftment.

Sa maraming kaparaanan, sinalungat ng Bibliya ang mababang pagtrato sa mga babae noong unang panahon at masasalamin ang epekto ng radikal na pananaw na ito sa mundo sa kasaysayan. Dapat na ikunsidera ng mga tumutuligsa sa Bibliya patungkol sa saloobin nito sa mga babae ang mga paganong kultura sa panahon ng Lumang Tipan, Bagong Tipan, at sa kasaysayan ng unang iglesya. Kahit sa ating kasalukuyang panahon, kailangan lamang paghambingin ang kalagayan ng mga babae sa mga bansang Kristiyano at sa mga bansang hindi Kristiyano. Gayundin naman, dapat na isaalang-alang ang nakapanghihilakbot na pagtrato sa mga kakabaihan ng industriya ng mga hindi mananampalataya gaya ng pornograpiya, at pagbebenta ng laman, na parehong direktang tinututulan ng mga utos ng Diyos sa Bibliya. 

Kagaya ng iba pang siyu sa lipunan, nagtatag ang Kristiyanismo ng pundasyon ng moralidad na nagreresulta sa mga ideya gaya ng kahalagahan, pagkakapantay-pantay, at kalayaan ng mga kababaihan. Ang etika na nag-ugat sa pananaw ng Kristiyanismo at nagresulta sa pagkakapantay-pantay sa sosyedad at pagbibigay ng oportunidad sa mga kababaihan na hindi maiaalok ng mga hindi Kristiyanong kultura o maaaring makita sa mga bansang hindi Kristiyano ngunit naimpluwensyahan ng Kristiyanismo kaya’t wala silang magawa kundi yakapin ang parehong pananaw. 

Mahalaga ring pansinin ang pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng misogyny na inilalarawan ng iba at sa misogyny na isinusulong naman ng iba. Maaaring idetalye ng mga aklat kasaysayan ang nakaririmarim na holocaust at black plague, ngunit hindi natin ipinagpapalagay na sumasang-ayon kay Hitler ang mga manunulat ng mga librong ito. Totoong makikita din sa Bibliya ang ilang mga halimbawa ng misogyny, ngunit ang mga gawaing iyon ay kinondena at hindi sinang-ayunan ng Bibliya. Ang isang halimbawa ang ay ang panggagahasa at pagpatay sa mga babaeng mangangalunya sa Hukom 19:25–29, isang pangyayari na nakatawag pansin sa maraming Israelita at nagpasiklab sa isang digmaang sibil. Masigasig na ginagamit ng mga kritiko ng Bibliya ang mga kaparehong insidente sa Bibliya ng hindi binabanggit na ang ganoong gawain ay inilarawan lamang bilang bahagi ng kuwento ngunit hindi sinang-ayunan o hinimok man ng nagkuwento.☨

God honors womanhood. Jesus Christ honored women. “Jesus rescued a guilty woman from her accusers (John 8:9–11), was referred to as “teacher” by Mary and Martha (John 11:28), and openly taught the woman at the well (John 4:9–10), in defiance of social pressures.” Ang kaligtasan na alok ng ating Panginoon ay hindi kumikilala ng kasarian (Gal 3:28).

Next episode po pag usapan naman natin ang declarations ng kababayan nating gay Aglipayan on disabled people.

Photo Credit
____________________________
＊"Is There Misogyny in the Bible?" GotQuestions (online); available at https://www.gotquestions.org/misogyny-Bible.html

✝️ Ibid

☨ "Ano ang isang misoginist o isang taong mababa ang pagtingin sa mga babae?" GotQuestions (online); available at https://www.gotquestions.org/Tagalog/mababa-pagtingin-babae.html.

Ang episode na ito ay naka pattern sa 4H Apologetics method na dinivelop ng inyong lingkod. Ang pagbabasa at pagsusuri nito ay isa sa mga paraan upang lalo kayong masanay sa 4H Apologetics kung ito ang inyong pakay. Mahalaga na tayo'y manood o makinig ng mga "big game" apologetics na hatid ng mga tulad nila Ravi Zacarias o William Lane Craig subalit baka tulad ng panonood ng NBA o PBA marunong tayo mag appreciate pero 'pag tayo na ang gagawa ay nangangapa tayo. Pagyamanin natin ang ating sarili sa tungkuling ito ng pag-a-apologetics. 

Does God Hate Women? (Part 1): On the Allegation of Divine Misogyny at the SOGIE Senate Hearing || 4H Apologetics

This episode was aired as a 10-minute segment on September 10, 2019 (7:00PM) at 702 DZAS' Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines

Magse-segue muna po tayo galing sa sinimulan nating apologetics series on slavery, murder, sexism, etc na mga allegations against the Bible using the Bible pa against itself, at lilipat muna po tayo para tugunan ‘yung pressing issues concerning the Bible as you might have heard it sa recent na Senate Hearing on SOGIE nung September 4 (here's the youtube video). Hindi po natin tatalakayin ang SOGIE sa ilang segue series na ito dahil tatalakayin po ‘yan ng ating guest teacher na si Bro. Omar sa October. What we will talk about sa segue series na ito is yung mga declarations nung mga pro-SOGIE religious people patungkol sa Bible. A lot of conservative Christians I know expressed their concerns sa mga declarations na ito at minarapat nating bigyan pa ng voice and representation itong concern na ito dito sa episode na ito. In doing so, I hope na mabigyan ng grammar o expression ang criticism ng mga conservative na may high-view ng Scripture sa publiko sa pamamagitan ng broadcast na ito. We will first deal with the theology nung gay na Aglipayan and his declarations concerning the Bible’s misogyny, low regard for disabled people and slavery. We will start with part 1 today and part 2 next on the issue of misogyny.

Sabi nung gay Aglipayan ay hindi daw maaaring maging definitive guide sa rights ang Bible dahil daw sa quote-and-unquote "Timothy 2:11" ang sabi daw ay "I do not permit a woman to teach..." pero meron daw tayong "positive laws for women" suggesting 'yung pagiging irrelevant ng Bible sa usapan. Very obvious na ang object of criticism niya ay ang endorsement ng Bible to oppress women by commanding women to keep silent. Parang binubusalan ang babae na 'wag magsalita. This was his point in trying to persuade the lawmakers to pass the SOGIE Bill and to dissuade them not to listen to religious arguments based on the Bible. The argument being na dalawa lang ang kasarian na nilikha ng Diyos at 'yung mga denunciation against homosexuality.

To organize our thoughts for a response kasi maraming issue doon sa binanggit niya and also for the observation din nung mga nag-aaral ng 4H Apologetics, let us begin with this argument:  "Wag gamitin ang Bible sa discussion on rights especially women's rights dahil sa simple evidence na lang ng quote-and-unquote “Timothy 2:11” is oppressive of women.

Hindi na sikreto ang mga diskurso laban sa Christianity concerning Christian misogyny especially mga kritisismo sa atheist literature; but sadly meron din sa mga professing Christian groups tulad netong gay Aglipayan. Isa sa mga sinasabi ng mga kritiko ng faith ay tulad nito --

• [I]t strikes me as strange that more women are religious than men, and yet men dominate religion. The bible and the church fathers from all three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all find women repugnant with only one duty, to produce male off spring and cater to the men in their lives. They are property. . . The list of passages putting down women in the bible is almost endless. To me it is amazing that women can believe and pass on this information about themselves and even agree with it. No wonder that women often suffer from low self esteem and low self worth.* 

If the allegation found in the Bible most specifically “Timothy 2:11” is true, then we should not put any value sa Bible if it speaks on rights and the dignity of the human person. Christians like Cong Eddie Villanueva and Sen Pacquiao must be prevented na magsalita tungkol sa kanilang Christian point of view sa mga issues dahil they will reference an oppressive book that has no place sa public discourse.

Before we present ang ating counter argument banggitin ko lang ang ilang early factual mistakes of the gay Aglipayan dahil ang claim niya ay he has read the Bible based on facts.

First of all there are two letters of Paul to Timothy sa Bible so you have to say either First or Second Timothy or 1 or 2 Timothy. Second, we know he was quoting from 1 Timothy 2: 12, yet he referenced verse 11.

Having put that out of the way, ang counter argument natin is “Maaari nating gamitin ang Bible sa talakayan on women's rights dahil zeroing in on the gay Aglipayan's erroneous reasoning that Timothy 2:11 or more accurately 1 Timothy 2:12 is not oppressive of women. It in fact affirms the important role of women.

We will focus on what he emphatically pointed out as the oppressive word: be quiet. Kailangan lang nating ipaliwanag kung ano ang gustong sabihin nito at hindi ‘yung ini-insinuate niya na tila baga bubusalan ang bibig ng mga babae.

Paliwanag ni Denny Burk --

• 'Quietly' does not mean that women are never to utter a word when the church gathers for worship. This would completely contradict what Paul says about women in 1 Corinthians 11, where he tells the women how to pray and prophesy in church. His assumption is that they will pray and prophesy, which means his assumption is that they will speak during church services. We may note that the term for 'quietly' in verse 11 is similar to the term for 'quiet' in verse 2 [kung saan nabanggit ni Pablo na “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”]. When Christians are commanded to pray for a 'peaceful and quiet life,' that phrase does not describe a life in which no one talks. It aims rather at a life 'without turmoil' (cf. BDAG, s.v. ἡσυχία). Likewise here, 'quietly' does not mean complete silence. It means instead that women are to be 'without turmoil.' [o kalmado, o mahinahon, o mahinhin] The term requires women to have a “quiet demeanor and spirit that is peaceable instead of argumentative.✝️  

Non sequitur 'yung support niyang "Timothy 2:11" sa claim niyang the Bible cannot be definitive on women's rights. Walang kinalaman 'yung verse sa maski anong batas sa kababaihan. 1 Timothy 2:12 is an ecclesiastical admonition from a respected church authority for godly women to be peaceable at hindi ma-eskandalo. It is not a verse that is proof of neither a crime nor a simple oppression.

Babalikan po natin ang topic na ito sa next episode para kumpletuhin ang ating response. Also sa mga nagsasanay ng 4H apologetics, mapapansin ninyo na ito’y bitin at hindi itinuloy sa Heal at Honor. Next episode po natin ‘yan gagawin.

_____________________

*Ron Hooft, "The Bible and the Oppression of Women," HubPages (online); available at https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Bible-and-The-Oppression-of-Woman.

✝️Denny Burk, "What Does It Mean That Women Should “Remain Quiet” in Church? (1 Timothy 2)," Crossway (online); available at https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-women-should-remain-quiet-in-church-1-timothy-2/.

Ang episode na ito ay naka pattern sa 4H Apologetics method na dinivelop ng inyong lingkod. Ang pagbabasa at pagsusuri nito ay isa sa mga paraan upang lalo kayong masanay sa 4H Apologetics kung ito ang inyong pakay. Mahalaga na tayo'y manood o makinig ng mga "big game" apologetics na hatid ng mga tulad nila Ravi Zacarias o William Lane Craig subalit baka tulad ng panonood ng NBA o PBA marunong tayo mag appreciate pero 'pag tayo na ang gagawa ay nangangapa tayo. Pagyamanin natin ang ating sarili sa tungkuling ito ng pag-a-apologetics.