TaN: We habitually, intentionally or not but usually the latter, put inappropriate credit (or blame) on someone else when it should be ourselves. Some cases in point are: attributing to God our good fortune (or blaming, as Mr Duterte is wont to do, for his bad mouth and language, or thanking the physician (not doctor, not unless s/he also teaches patients or students) for healing our disease.
In reality, most of the time, we are responsible for most everything that transpires in our lives, including all the good as well as the ill fortune that befall us. In truth, all that happen to us are direct (or indirect) results or consequences of our past actions and decisions. And these actions and decisions are rarely imposed or forced upon us but are willful and consentuous — aside from the obvious laws and regulations of government and society.
It is, therefore, inappropriate to pass the blame to others — be they people or natural or inanimate objects. It is innate in us to deny any wrongdoing and accept blame but this inherent behavior or habit does not excuse us or make us guiltless. We must overcome this wrong trait to elevate ourselves to a higher plane, a greater status, to accept our faults and move on to greater things.
Honestly, all the talk about “saving his country” by Mr Duterte is just a bunch of crap. One does not save anything by killing nor achieve any lasting effect by threats of death. It is just part of the global effort to depopulate the planet, to reduce the global population to a “more manageable and productive” size and do away with those who cannot or will not be of use to the global elites — who seek only world domination and not dominion
In fact, there is and will never be a crime — no matter how heinous — that merits the taking of a life. It would appear that Mr Duterte either does not believe in second (or third or fourth) chances or he believes that is more than one God and the God who created him is different from the God that created his victims.
Moreover, unless he reads (or believes in) a different set of Holy Scriptures, I faintly recall that it is or has been written (of this incident):
* in Matthew 18:21—”Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?” and 22 “Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven” [KJV, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A21-22&version=KJV]
* as well as in Luke 17:4—“And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” [KJV, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-17-4/]
So, how is it that Mr Duterte (and his blindly loyal minions), whom his victims have not even directly trespassed against him, order the killing of precious lives no matter how much evil they have done to themselves or others? From where does he get that moral authority?
TaN: Man is the most diverse species on this planet — in terms of range of physical dimensions and characteristics (from size and complexion to features to behavior). Very few species have heights ranging from a midgets to giants, from rail thin to grotesquely obese (weighing to almost half a ton), from almost coal black to pale white (and even albinos)…
Sure, there are pygmy versions of some species (like the ponies and hippopotamuses and even people) but the pygmy versions are almost uniform in size and shape. Moreover, there is only the normal size and the pygmy version. The only other creature exhibiting as much diversity in size and shape is the domestic canine family — ranging from the minis and chihuahuas and toy dogs to the St Bernard and Great Dane. And aside from the size, different leg lengths can be seen which are a result of interbreeding with other sub-species, like having the short legs of the dachshunds or the long ears of basset and blood hounds
It is interesting to note that some deviation in physical dimensions are attributable to the environment — i.e., man’s variation from the “average” are frequently a necessity to adapt to the environment for survival, like certain bushmen tribes of Africa who inhabit the tall grassy regions have to be tall so they can see over the grass.
In any case, man’s unique physical characteristics appear to have developed to enable him to adapt and survive in whichever environment he — i.e., his ancestral generations — has settled.
TaN: Who is the greater fool, the fool himself or those who believe and support him? Actually, the greatest fools are the ones who continue to believe and support a fool despite learning that the one they believe in and support is a fool.
And speaking of fools and the foolish, there is another explanation why certain people continue to believe in and support a fool despite knowing — they are benefiting from it and are playing the fool for all he is worth.
If were the fool, I would be very careful and cautious about the people who I keep around me, assuming that I am aware of and admit that I am a fool. Denying my being a fool only exacerbates the situation and delays the inevitable but the truth will eventually catch up with me and the embarrassment would be much worse. Denial is a form of (false) pride and it is written that…the fall soon follows false pride.
It is very interesting to note that fools seldom, if ever, regard themselves as fools. Instead, they regard all others as fools and will never hesitate to label others as such. I can only feel pity with empathy for them.
The best way to treat fools is just to tolerate their crassness and arrogance but continue to (constructively) criticize and admonish them. Just let their insults slide off you as water on a duck. It is really pitiful that such people cannot move beyond their foolishness and false pride and be mature enough to take criticisms and work things out like responsible adults and not engage in physical violence like children and the immature do.
TaN: Money, due to or driven by greed, is so powerful that it can change or justify what is immoral — such as legalizing gambling. Games of chance are classified into two major categories: gaming and gambling. The difference between the two is the element of chance or probability.
In gaming, the probability of winning is determined largely on the player’s ability to study and consider the odds or chances of a set of desired results as against the undesired. In gaming, skill plays a vital role or factor in determining success.
Gambling, however, is based on pure chance. Skills plays absolutely no role in achieving desired outcomes. Any semblance of success is purely coincidental.
Based on and considering this argument, gambling should be frowned upon because it encourages people to be dependent on chance while gaming can be tolerated for as long as it does not “get out of hand” — i.e., it does not become a vice (which means that the gaming activity does not degenerate or dominate one’s life.
In the light of these definitions and explanations, it is important that government and society make the correct distinction before legalizing and patronizing, respectively, the immorality of gambling activities. Tolerance for gambling should be restricted to mature (and responsible) people who engage in gambling purely for entertainment and leisure purposes — i.e., “responsible” in the sense that no gain is derived except for pleasure and satisfaction without sacrificing or impinging on what needs to be done, like the needs of the family and the community and the common good.
Strictly speaking, both games of chance should be dealt with responsibly and under appropriate conditions. Gambling should not be permitted not until everyone or at least a very significant majority of the population are well off and responsible enough not to engage in it unless and until all other matters have been addressed — i.e., family needs are taken cared of, the community has a strong concern regarding the corrupting influence of gambling, and no money or any of its various forms and instrumentalities are involved. Meanwhile, gaming should be regulated judiciously and closely to prevent it from degenerating into gambling and society is mature enough to have strong a political will and closely monitors it.
TaN: Granting, without admitting, that there is such a thing as luck — good and bad — and considering what is written in the Holy Scriptures, it can no longer be attributed to God. Instead, it is either of our own doing, especially if we obey or violate the teachings and admonitions of God through the Holy Scriptures, or because of the Devil
It no longer makes sense to attribute good (fortune) or bad (events) luck to God because He has already done what He needs to in order to guide and teach us by sending His Only Begotten Son, His prophets, His apostles, and His Word. He has since stopped intervening or meddling in our affairs. He has done more than enough and it is up to us now to do our part.
If good things happen and (we feel) it is due to our obedience to the Holy Scriptures, then whatever good happens comes naturally because must be so. It cannot be coming from God through His direct intercession because He has stopped direct interaction with man since His Son came to us. During Jesus’ stay, the Father’s direct interaction has been primarily restricted to those with His Son. Only in rare occasions has the Father directly interacted with man anymore — as in the baptism at the river Jordan by John the Baptist. Most indirect interaction by the Father during Jesus’ brief stay has been through the Holy Spirit or angels.
However, if good things happen despite not following Scriptures, it can only come from the Devil — who also “grants” good fortune to ensure his “victims” continue to ignore Scriptures as well as to entice others to follow suit. It is not beyond Satan to grant good fortune to his “followers” — those who direct do his bidding, as in intentionally committing sinful acts despite learning the Scriptures, or who do it indirectly, as in committing sinful acts ignorant or innocent of the Scriptures.
Anyway, it is interesting that people believe in — and, to an extent, rely so much on — “luck” that they go to great and varied lengths just to ensure it, like amulets and talismans, cultural or superstitious practices, and even religious rites, even among Christians or those who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, God, and Holy Scriptures. This is intriguing because the Bible specifically prohibits the use or creation of objects (or even living things) for purposes of worship or even just as reminders or for any purpose serving to remember and represent superstition or God (as in the very First Commandment).
In conclusion, there is really no such as thing as luck because there is really no such thing as good fortune. It is all relative — i.e., as in the saying, One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, or Problem is just another word for opportunity, or other similar sayings in other cultures.