(The following is my English Communications course argumentative essay. If you think it sucks, please, be gentle. Partly because I know it does suck as it is.)

The Bible has been regarded in the western world as possibly the most important book ever created. It would be suicide to write a bad review about it. Sacred, I suppose the proper term is. It has surpassed the basic rules of society and has reached the status of divine. Most likely because it is the foundation by which all Christian religions stand. Moreover, it’s the word of God (or so it says). It’s hard to dispute the word of God. It is the word of God after all. What I think is happening, in my humble mortal opinion, is that the Bible is a classic case of misattribution. God, for example, would have not inspired someone to write something like, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Unless, of course, he is a sexist God, by which case it seems he is not so perfect after all.

“All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness,” says 2 Timothy 3:16, and if what common beliefs says is correct and the Bible is never wrong, then you’d think it would be perfect. It is not, however. I believe this because the every book which says, “The law of the land is perfect, refreshing the soul. The decree of the Lord is trustworthy,” (Psalm 19:8), also says, “The infants shall be dashed to pieces in the sight; their houses shall be plundered and their wives ravished,” (Isaiah 13:16) by God’s orders just because he’s angry. Trustworthy indeed, I suppose, and very, very touchy. I’m also sure the conservatives will love the fact that God had commanded that “if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” (Lev 20:13). The next time I feel the pangs of divine rage, I’ll be sure to kill a homosexual, as per divine command. “…we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from having us, you received not a human word but, as truly is, the world of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). If that’s so, then God is cruel. You’d think what he thinks is good, we will find good also. Sexism and murder, however – not so good. Does this mean God can simply do what he wants? When he tells Moses to “Let [him] alone, that my wrath may blaze up against them and consume them” in Exodus 32:10 just because people began worshipping a golden calf, it sure seems that way. He is pleased with “proper sacrifice, burnt offerings and holocausts” (Psalm 53:21) though. Hardly the merciful God you’ve come to know and love.

It has been frequently said that one must look at the Bible in context to its time, when it was rampant to (apparently) die for transgressions and sacrificing various animals were still the fad. It would be odd, however, for God, being the infinite being that he is, to subdivide his existence into eras, just as we would. Unless he has the mind of a woman undecided in the midst of a shopping spree, one would rationally wonder why he would suddenly change standards. God, as Thomas Aquinas put in his seminal Summa Theologica, is an eternal being: he exists outside time. Therefore, one would wonder why he would change at all, change being a fundamentally temporal concept. Thus, again, one would wonder why one would need to put God’s actions into context since God should have no change from the time when he slew all Egyptian children to now when he apparently didn’t mind the Jews’ systematic murders. Context, then? Is that really the case? If God is eternal, then I suppose not. Without delving into the supernatural and assumption (as with Occham’s razor: the conclusion with the least amount of assumptions is usually the most correct), this would be illogical. Another view, of course, would be anthropocentric: man was different. It’s odd, however, for God to sanction death at the time of poor technology and poor hygiene, when the last thing they needed was people dying. So much for the supreme supplier.

There are, of course, those who say that this doesn’t matter, be in contradictory or not, the Bible is a definitive source of morality and divine guidance. This statement refutes itself, as one cannot go to a source and both be told to kill and not to kill at the same time and rationally call that source definitive. At best such a source would be considered murky, at worst, a fraud. The proponents of this apathetic argument would usually say the terribly irrational could be reconciled by the simple fact that God is so far above our own intellect that it would be useless to try and understand him, which would be quite against the point of trying to incorporate the whole habit of receiving guidance and morality from the Bible as, if God is irrational yet correct, then the correct would effectively not function in our perfectly rational world. We basically live our lives according to cause and effect: that is, if you would do something, you would expect something to come out of it. Push a rock and you would naturally expect it to move. This interaction between cause and effect is ruled by rationality derived from the laws of nature, which we harvest and predict using logic. Therefore, to do something irrational and illogical, and expect something to happen accordingly would be fruitless. It would be, essentially, denying yourself of the truth that we have gathered throughout the ages, namely called knowledge. Simply put: to swallow poison and expect to live (as according to Mark 16:18: “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”), it simply won’t happen – no matter how much God understands this. It is irrational, it just won’t happen, and so, it won’t be applicable to us in this world, and would not be a fit source for morality.

What really puts me in a rut, however, is the time-tested argument: God is infinite – that is, omnipotent in every way imaginable and unimaginable –, you simply cannot question him. If he wants something done, even if it is against every logical principle in the universe, it would be done. This would defy the principle of refutability. In terms of logic, one cannot truly prove nor disprove something which is irrefutable. If the Bible says something, and you do it, it will happen, no matter what is rational or not, because God can do absolutely anything. I admit. There is nothing any argument can do to this one, as the premise is also the conclusion: God can do everything, no matter how mind-boggling. What I would appeal to on this one, however, is the fact that God’s will, as it is “revealed” in the Bible seems completely absent in today’s world. If God can do everything, why isn’t he doing anything? Of course, the ability to do something is exclusive as to actually doing anything, but with the proposed characteristics of God as loving and supplying, one would wonder just why all of these suddenly stopped, and not simply by the lack of a Biblical age – it stopped completely. To deny this would be naïve: wars, plagues and holocausts, all these occurring without God. In the words of Epicurus: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.” Either he is not omnipotent, or he is malevolent, contradictory to what the Bible states. Essentially, the Bible has either made a mistake about the nature of God as all-loving, by which then it is not anymore infallible, or God, dare I say, does not exist, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. What use then is a Bible if it is incorrect? Certainly we can’t go and revise, as no one seems to be of divine inspiration anymore.

Furthermore, there are those who say the Bible is merely metaphorical, not literal, and those passages depicting terror and those speaking nonsense things are actually stand-ins for meanings much deeper. This, however, would mean everything in the Bible could be twisted into something else, given the correct training in deceit. In today’s world where a single rose could mean love, sorrow, nature, beauty, and a lot more others, perhaps then only God himself could truly give us the meaning behind the numerous cryptic passages in the Bible. It would simply not be practical to be relativist in terms of a work as dense as the Bible, as then numerous interpretations would emerge. This, however, does not stop the people from creating numerous cults according to Biblical passages, which illustrates just how perilous this method of understanding the Bible is. Furthermore, in terms of Catholicism, there is no room for relativism: it is a purely dogmatic religion. Metaphorical justifications for the Bible, therefore, would be grossly impractical and would not lead to any truth aside from imagined ones.

And so, we are left with the premise that the Bible is simply wrong. I wouldn’t go far as to say it is the mere invention of old men growing weary of their existence and so decided to create among themselves a greater being which would validate their menial lives – but I guess I just did. The Bible is too dense, too ancient and too incredulous to avoid such claims, especially in today’s critical world. Blind faith, I suppose. No argument, however, can tamper with pure faith. One of my favorite philosophers (aside from the obvious Nietzsche, whose cynicism has certainly rubbed off on me), Søren Kierkegaard wrote in his book Fear and Trembling, “I believe nevertheless that I shall get her, in virtue, that is, of the absurd, in virtue of the fact that with God all things are possible.”

The Bible, regardless of anyone’s opinion, is objectively absurd, and it is faith in the absurd that drives men to do things which are irrational and inherently useless, but which they believe is divinely justified. There is good in the Bible, make no mistake. I acknowledge that completely. However, in today’s day and age, there need not be an ancient text for us to justify good sense, especially not one which is based upon myths more than a hundred years old. With risk offending all those in the Judeo-Christian faith, I have to say The Bible is nothing but a faulty map to good common sense and concern for mankind, and though this book contains some correct passages, it nonetheless makes the reader turn useless paths and false passageways. Turn then, I recommend, to common sense, to which the only sacrifice one needs to make is the utter murder of one’s own ignorance.

I live in the Philippines. Not exactly human rights central. Sure, we get along fine, but the moment someone in the upper echelons think you’re messing with them too much – well, let’s just say we have a huge three-digit number record for extra-judicial killings (hint: 835). Our corruption record’s also horrible. Yep, Number 131 on the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International in the year 2007; and just to make it clear: Number 1 is the least corrupt. 179 is the bottom of the list. Imagine living in a place like that and then blogging about it. Screaming it out loud. I know I have rights. Section 9 of the Bill of Rights in the Philippine 1987 Constitution states, and I quote:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Therefore, we are given free speech and no laws must be passed saying otherwise. That’s one of the most beautiful paragraphs in the whole document, even if I do say so myself.

So, I’m free to say things. Wonderful. But, as with everything in society, there is a limit to this freedom. Mostly so that no people are inconvenienced by people using this freedom against them. Again, another case of losing your freedom to security. Anyway, there’s this thing all bloggers are at least sometimes concerned about: libel. Now, in the US, I understand you have clearly defined rules about these sorts of things, and a few Google searches and trips to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s blogger’s rights page could get you all the info you want and need. We, on the other hand, probably also have defined rules but I can find none except for a few bits and pieces around the net. Take this one, for example, which I found in The Warrior Lawyer blog:

How is libel defined under Philippine laws? Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead”

For an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.”

Even if something is real, as long as it causes “dishonor, discredit or contempt”, it can be considered libel. Abso – fucking – lutely brilliant. Not only that but even if the person you’ve libeled (never knew that was a verb too) has already died, you can still be sued. Remind me never to make Marcos jokes.

There are, however, various criteria as to what constitutes as a libelous statement in Philippine jurisdiction. It says that it must be defamatory (and I do that a lot), it must be malicious (which I certainly am), it must be given publicity (a blog sure is public) and the victim must be identifiable (they sure as hell are). In this context, therefore, I am fucked.

Fucked? You may be saying. Fucked? Yes! FUCKED! We watch so much US shows that we just don’t realize how intolerant our country is. Case in point: last September 7, Mark Verzo of Thoughts in Binary and creator of Bembang! (I won’t be shocked if you have no idea what these websites are – they’re Filipino and I’ve only heard of them now) was arrested on Pornography Distribution charges. You know why? Because he was also the dude who created the ever-so-free Boybastos.com. That’s right. Never knew you’re not supposed to distribute porn, did you? Free motherfucking speech! (I’m getting angry). If he fucking wants to express himself in naked pictures and people copulating, does the government need to inter – fucking – fere? Now, Mister Verzo was released later that day after being fingerprinted because the numb nuts in the NBI missed the fact that there are no laws against internet pornography in this lovely supposedly free country. (And for the record, the National Bureau of Investigation does not actually have numb nut employees and is in fact a fairly efficient branch of our executive government.) How’s that for dodging libel? Anyway, that little freedom to have internet porn on your computer is going to be compromised now too because of the lovely Senator Loren Legarda. Her new Senate Bill 1375: the Anti-Computer Pornography Act (I would rather call it the First-Step-To-Legislating-The-End-Of-Free-Speech Bill) should provide sanctions for the above freedom such as six – yes, you read that right: SIX) years in prison and a 500,000 peso fine. All that suffering just because you showed the Filipino public some tits.

This is atrocious. Absolutely atrocious. What kind of “democracy” doesn’t allow its citizens to have very basic rights such as the right to say whatever the fuck they want? A flawed one, that’s what. We’re not a democracy. We parade as one, but we’re not. As fellow blogger Basapa said:

I was exasperated, because no matter how much they deny it, everyone knows that in the Philippines, even if you don’t sleep in the Government-Church bed, you’re still fucked. Loren Legarda’s arrest of Mark Verzo was a warning shot: the sordid theocratic affair between the government and the church have the collective power to control what you say, those who do not agree with them will pay dearly.

I agree. We are living in not a democratic country but a theocratic country. We are forced to follow morals supposedly brought upon us by the same God who killed dozens of first-born Egyptian children. And we are forced not just by coercion, but by law. We have to follow even if we disagree, even if it’s against what we believe is ethically and morally correct. We’re being herded like cows. It disgusts me. I’d rather stare at shit for an hour than fully ingest the implications of this issue. We are neither robots nor plants. They cannot control us. We are a democracy and we should be governing ourselves. We should talk for the country, not some lame-ass politicians who impose their wills on us. We are supposed to be free! Law is supposed to help us live easier, happier and better – not bind us.

Talking will always hurt sometimes, and if it does, they other can easily talk back. It doesn’t kill, and there are enough opinions for everybody. Just because some stupid fucks get offended, does that mean we have to restrain our freedom? Someone will always be offended. Always. As long as there are opinions, there will always be conflicting ones. Should we legislate a law forbidding us to talk now too so no opinions could go around? Fuck, let’s just be fascist and be done with it, shall we?

We, the people, are free. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As far as I can see, we’re all human here. Therefore, I have this right. You have this right. Mister Verzo has this right. No one can ever take that away, with or without the constitution or the Universal Declaration or whatever. If nature intended us to not clash once in a while, then we wouldn’t have been given such large brains. It’s not so hard to change websites. If you don’t want to see one of them, if you disagree, then it’s just as easy to switch to another one, it would be stupid and impractical to tear one down just because some of us are conservative bastards. If we tear something down just because a few of us disagree, then we might as well just lie down, be still, and wait for death.

Okay, now, do me a favor. Tell me what you think. Express yourself. Do you agree? Disagree? Is my argument flawed? Go ahead. I won’t mess with you. Use your freedom quick – before the government takes it away from you.

Let me tell you a little something about communism. Let’s say a man by the name of John lives in Capitalist Philippines. First of all, let me say that he’s fucked freedom wise. Second of all, let’s say he works for eighty-hours a week. That’s a whopper. But his friend Tristan only works for twenty-hours a week. That’s measly. At the end of the day, what happens? Well, both of them still get the same wage, the same goods, the same rights and both stay at the same economic class. How’s that for a fuck you to the fruits of your labor?

In communism no one owns anything. Everything belongs to the collective. Yeah, like the Borg in Star Trek. Those mindless robot things that – as far as I know – do nothing but assimilate and try to survive. No art, no sex, no nothing. So even if you want to try and gain enough dough to gain more resources, you can’t. Because you will get what the others get. And if you want to get rich, to get more for yourself, you’ll have to make everyone else work harder. What the motherfucking hell is that about? If they can’t work hard enough to get a PS3, I don’t get one too? Even if I work my ass off? What? Even if I get a PS3 it’s not mine? Fuck!

Oh, thank the Baby Jesus for Capitalism. In Capitalism, you get what you work for. That’s how it should be. If you’ve worked hard, then you should be given a fucking prize. If you’re a slob, then you should be fucking punished. Easy shit. Practical, predictable, and free. I like being free. Everyone should be free.

Now, Professor Vallesteros there has provided me a thought-experiment about the “flaws” of Capitalism. I paraphrased it to sound less retarded than when it first appeared:

“Let’s say there are two brothers. Both of which get an inheritance. One of the brothers live on this, the other continues to do his job. Once the first brother runs out of an inheritance, the others supply him with his salary. Why does the first one get to live life comfortably with a steady amount of money even without hard work?”

That is stupid. Don’t you agree? First of all, this isn’t a flaw of Capitalism; it’s a flaw on the second brother’s ability to fucking think. Why the hell would you supply your brother if he’s perfectly able to work? There are certain freedoms in Capitalism that indeed do give you a right to supply your brother – but why is that a flaw? No one’s being cheated. No one’s being distressed. Yes, it’s unfair but what the hell does anyone care if it doesn’t hurt anyone? You may complain if your grade is lower in class when your teacher promised you all equal grades, that’s because it’ll hurt your final average. You may complain if the food in your restaurant is a smaller portion than the other’s because you won’t get a satisfied. But what the hell hurts if that guy doesn’t work? Income? Hell no. Market prices? Fuck no. Pride? Maybe. Ego? Your fucking ego hurts that you work when he’s not? Well, fuck your ego. It’s these kinds of people that would rather mind the business of others then work on their own that destroy Capitalism altogether.

Professor Vallesteros is a communist. He wants everyone to do the same thing to get the same result. That is exactly what freedom is against: uniformity. Capitalism isn’t about people working: it’s about people being free. Free to do whatever you want with your money, free to sell what they want, and free to get what they can – all set within a pretty idiot-proof framework. So fuck brother A and brother B, they’re just as free as anyone. To hell with brother B if he wants to burden himself. Who fucking cares? The important thing is: you’re free. You don’t have to share if you don’t want to. You don’t have to buy if you don’t want to. But, most importantly, you don’t have to stick to crap if you just work hard enough.

There are a lot more to say about this beautiful economic system – but you’re already fucking bored (or, you’ll be) if I go too far into it. But you get the basics. Now go and buy something – celebrate your right to do so. Then laugh at Communist China.

Is it any shock that people my age today play Ring Around the Rosie with each other, pretending to have love and commitment with each one? Of course not. Two things: Hollywood and New Age Hedonism covered up in twisted morality. By a huge chance, you’re probably my age. Hell, seven people view this motherfucking thing and all of them are my age. Therefore, I know you know what I’m talking about. Think about it. If you’re really the modern Romantic that you are, would you do it now? Honestly, what are the chances that whoever you go with now will be with you forever? 50% of marriages fail; even more are involved in affairs. Even those who make decisions at a more lucid point in their lives don’t get to love one person exclusively with complete loyalty. What makes you think you’ll be able to keep that Prince Charming or Fiona the Ogre for the rest of your lives? If your sick demented mind is still in that place where you think fairies exist, then fine, I understand. But if you’re half as rational as I give you credit for, then you should at least realize that you have more of a chance being beaten by a cow to death than keeping that High School sweetheart of yours. Now, I’m not completely against people meeting people, perhaps being romantic, perhaps having fun under the covers once in a while. I don’t fucking care what you do with your life. It’s your business. What I hate is people telling themselves that “this is it!” and then being miserable because “the stars failed to bring them as one to the ends of fate”. That’s fucking bullshit. As for now, all we can hope for with relationships are flings and temporary romance. As for the long term, we still have to wait.

Do realize that only vultures and this tapeworm whose genitals fuse to each other once they mate are the only two known species among a very few others that are monogamous. Yes, we’re naturally polygamists, and up to the recent century, people have been practicing monogamy. Marriage is a social symbol, but that doesn’t mean people don’t philander around. Again, it’s the hedonistic “You please me and no one else, fucker!” that makes us think the good thing is to stick to one. Actually, love wanes after eighteen months to three years. After that, expect culture to take over and tell you that you’ll be an evil fuck if you ever leave your commitment. Fucking society messes with nature again. Speaking from a scientific standpoint, we were made polygamous so our genes would mix and match with others of our kind. Evolution works better that way. What is so bad about telling each other “sorry, it’s over, let’s both move on”? Not only is it perfect fine – ethically, morally and whatever – it’s also the honest and good thing to do. If you’re tired, forcing yourself would only make you hurt the other person eventually. Work it out, perhaps even wait it out, and in the end, your love will end and it’ll be time to ride again with someone else.

Marriage? Well, that’s currently fucked up. Society isn’t free enough yet for kids to fully absorb that his or her daddy and mommy have different ideologies from the rest of the world and that they’ll be with other people while they raise him or her. Therefore, it’s really still up to the person. Fine, reject your humanity and give in to the prevailing opinion of the many: be monogamous, raise kids, lose your love in the middle of it all and be fucked. Or, try your best to be a father to a kid who’ll eventually know his or her parents dared be human for once instead of being pigs with brain implants.

In the end, the message here is – for the love of God, be proper because you know it’s proper instead of just following what the rest of the world thinks is proper.

I love our country. I really do. But guess what. Our brilliant government handed over a Human Rights Report to the United Nations for a Universal Periodic Review and the thing, apparently, was a fraud. What kind of country would we have to be called if even our top officials are scumbag liars? Fraud, you may say is a huge word. And indeed, it fucking is. It was twisted to show we’re all doing dandy. Dandy my hairy ass – extra-judicial killings and forced disappearances have risen in our country since the year 2006. Now, you’re saying, so what? You’ve been hearing these words tossed around for all this time, but do you fucking even know what it means? Lennart, do you? Kevin? Inna? Obviously, no. Well, here. Wikipedia says (and I quote):

“Extra-judicial killings are the illegal killing of leading political, trades union, dissident and/or social figures by either the state government, state authorities like the armed forces and police… or by criminal outfits such as the Italian Mafia.”

So, generally, my friends, the fucking state is killing its own leaders. Are we so fucked up that monkeys own us now? Can you imagine a place where the most dangerous people are the people on top? You know how many extra-judicial kills there have been since our current president’s rise to power? 835. See that number? That’s big. You don’t fucking go around a place and be proud that not one, not two, not a hundred but eight-hundred and thirty-five of your leaders have been slain by either the government, their fucking private armies or the mafia! And I’m pretty sure if we have a mafia here in the Philippines, they fucking suck because I haven’t heard of them. Sixteen countries in the UN expressed concern during this Human Rights Universal Periodic Review regarding our apparent problem with top-idiots killing themselves. That didn’t stop the government from saying that everything went well. It fucking didn’t. For the love of God, the only people applauding during the presentation of the said fraud document were the 40-people huge Philippine congregation. The assertions they made were superfluously slip-slope. It was inconsistent, it was blotchy; a fucking third grader who researched for two days and addressed how great the country was could’ve done better. Yes, it’s an exaggeration – but these people are our leaders, man! They are supposed to be top dogs in this archipelago and aside from being complete assholes who argue a lot to the point of killing themselves, they even lie to a world authority on our current state. Do they fucking think they can get away with fooling more than a third of the world?

Do me a favor. Tell me what you think. Think I’m wrong? With me absolutely? Think the senate is a bunch of creepy old people who like jacking each other off with big words? Comment. Your opinion counts, and it’ll help me big time. Also, the next time a law is passed or a political speech is given, just remember how much fucks those people actually are.