TaN: As I lay half-asleep this AM (8AM) of June 30, I had another one of my “divine” epiphanies — The “natural evolution” of human biological scientific endeavor is bringing us ever nearer to what has been foretold in the Holy Scriptures, which is a major cause of God’s wrath on Lucifer (aka Satan), and that is that he aspires to replicate creation of (another) human through genetic manipulation and cloning technology and eventually leads to anthropogenesis.
It must be remembered and realized that should it become real that we are able to “create” man, we may be able to replicate the physical shell or body but there is still the matter of a soul. However, considering that many men of science do not include God in the equation but foolishly account only the physical, I am certain that our efforts to “create” man will result in the next nail in the coffin of the Biblical prophecy of Armageddon.
All I am saying that we must be very careful and vigilant and not take anything for granted. Instead of rushing without fully appreciating and comprehending headlong into uncertain and uncharted territory — tinkering with the complex and intertwined sophistication of genetics and the symbiotic relationship between DNA and its proteins — we ought to take a step back and consider how much we really understand the intricacies of life.
Numerous past science fictions (gone horribly awry) — with the likes of: The Fly, Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and a bunch more — have given ample warning and it would be prudent and wise to heed them. And to further support this, take heed to the environmental disaster that is increasingly unfolding with cases of runaway superbugs, super weeds, grotesque deformities among amphibians and fish.
Designer babies sound so nice but do we fully understand the ramifications and consequences that are waiting to happen when our fragile hold breaks? Beware what has been done by Lucifer can happen again.
TaN: Mr Duterte alleges that he is not prone to give the Vice President a Cabinet position because it might offend his friend, losing vice presidential candidate Sen Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. With this pronouncement, Mr Duterte is using his lawyer training to (technically) avoid violating or contradicting earlier statements, mostly during the campaign trail, that his administration will not be one of patronage politics — no relatives, no friends, no classmates, no gunmates, no padrinos, no campaign contributors, no unqualified preferences, much like that of the preceding Noynoy administration. Instead, Mr Duterte “opted” to do the “indirect or negative” approach where he “does not do” rather than “do”.
If Mr Duterte is true to his oath and Mr Marcos is a true friend, one should not put such inconsequential matters as friendship ahead of the benefit for the country. All the while, I thought that Mr Duterte loves his country. With such statements, it would appear that Mr Duterte holds friendship (to Mr Marcos) more precious that the benefit to the country by doing good for his country.
I am reminded of the words supposedly attributed to the late President Manuel L Quezon when he was to have said, My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins. And to apply to Mr Duterte’s case, it would be: My loyalty to my friends ends where my loyalty to my country begins
TaN: On the controversial issue regarding Mr Duterte’s statement concerning media killings, both sides have faults and must learn to adjust and adapt. While it is true that Mr Duterte has a “unique” style and does not mince his words (although he likewise has a tendency to say or habit of saying things he does not really mean), nevertheless, he must remember that being a president of a country requires compromising or toning down of certain “personal habits and styles” because he has to deal not only with many different influential and diverse people but other countries that have a culture or values very different from his.
Moreover, with respect to media killings, he must bear in mind that he is a leader and his statements will be heard/read by many other people who may have a different understanding or take on what his actually means. He must likewise remember that in this digital information age when communication is almost instantaneous and have global reach, his words and actions will be monitored by diverse peoples and cultures.
He is correct in his argument that he does not care what other people think of him for as long as he is speaking and doing what is from his heart and for the good of his country, respectively, but there are such things as “restraint and sobriety”. He must understand that it is just as important — if not more so — that the recipient/s of his words or actions may have a different interpretation and this may cause problems down the road.
A case in point is the “threats” of human rights groups (both local and international) who may not take kindly to his statements regarding media (or any other) killings. In a world where the death penalty is all but a thing of the past — where less than a few countries are left that still impose the death penalty — it is contrary to bring such a punishment back from oblivion. It has been proven repeatedly that it is not the threat of death that deters criminality but the certainty of punishment. The death penalty has been proven to benefit only those who can “afford to buy time or influence”.
Even with his “brand” of swift justice, Mr Duterte appears to be too confident that it will not be subject to abuse. He must remember that we are talking about lives and once a life is gone, there are no take backs.
Moreover, it must likewise be remembered and understood that every person deserves a second chance (or even a third, fourth, fifth, etc). Heed the answer of Jesus — in Matthew 18:21-22 , KJV — when asked by Peter “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” and Jesus answered “I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.”
And while we are quoting Bible verses, there are also the ones (in Romans 12:19 and in Deuteronomy 32:35, KJV): “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” and “To me belongesth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste“, respectively. It is not for us to take the life of another. This power was never given to man by God.
In this world, we can only pass judgment on a person’s acts but never on his person nor his life. Unless and until we have an absolutely certain way of knowing the future, we can never tell what the future brings. For all we know, the person whom we condemn to death, if pardoned, will someday — himself or his descendant — bring prosperity and good will to humanity. And just because we took upon ourselves to judge him and convince ourselves that he is a scourge and must be put to death, he may change the course of human history. Remember the thief on the cross with Jesus (in Luke 39:43), who was evil throughout his life but with his last act, he changed.
In a world where the law that used to be based on our common values and system of beliefs is now more based on ensuring harmonious co-existence and peaceful interactions, it is no longer wise to be too quick to pass judgment on others. The reason is because we are no longer living with ourselves but have interrelations with other cultures and societies whose values, customs, traditions, and ways may be very different from ours. As such, it becomes necessary for us to make compromises because of the ethical principle that no culture is superior to another so it is not right to impose one’s system of values and beliefs on others. How would like it if other cultures were to impose theirs on us?