jasper

We planned to sleep early Saturday night because it was going to be church day the following day but we couldn't resist finishing the entire movie. I'm talking about Time Changer. It's actually an old movie (2002) that is categorized as Christian Science Fiction. Daniel and I thought it was going to be boring. No, we were not stereotyping but the main character is an old man living in the 1800s. I mean, what could be exciting about a person living in the 1800s? But, surprisingly, the movie was really good. No, it wasn't really a Class A movie that most of us are used to. The actors were not that popular (no, NOT Johnny Depp), there were no jaw-dropping CGI, and the action was almost zero. Yet there was something about the movie that kept us interested until the end.

The story is about an American Bible Professor (named Russel Carlisle) living in the 1800s (as already stated) who got into a disagreement with a collegue. The disagreement was on certain statements that Carlisle made in his book that was about to be published. This disagreement brought Carlisle into a different world (quite literally). At first, you would kind of "hate" Carlisle but later on, you would learn to love his character. No, I will not write the entire story here or the ending because that would be a real bummer.

The movie changed my perspective about so many things. In fact, it made me guilty about a few things in my life. The movie also reminded me that church is about JESUS -- not about programs, activities, and food (I have to mention food, sorry). My favorite line in the movie is "I think we just missed the rapture", and you just have to see the men's faces when they said this!

A must see for Jesus Freaks!

Official Website: www.timechangermovie.com

When I was in Law School, I was "sort of" listening to my teachers (sorry professors!). Most of them would say that the Labor Code of the Philippines (or our labor laws) is one of the best in the world. In other countries, employees can be fired anytime with or without cause. Here in the Philippines, the termination of the employee should always be with cause (those listed under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines) and the employer should follow the Two-Notice Rule. (Don't ask me to explain the Two-Notice Rule because I am not a lawyer. :p).

I've been around some areas in Bacolod City, and I've made "friends" with the people who are working in the places I frequent. I've had a talk with the employees in one of the places I always go to (I will not mention the name, sorry). We were talking about bands and music (they listen to a whole lot of rock music). After a while, we started talking about serious stuff. I asked them about their jobs. They told me that they work from 10am to 10pm EVERYDAY - no Rest Day for them. If they'd absent themselves from work, their employer would reprimand them -- even if they were absent for a valid reason (sickness, for example). I asked them if they have PhilHealth or SSS coverage. Unsurprisingly, their answer was "no". If I were still in college (UPV-CM), I would have told my organization (socio-political org) about this and, probably, we would be publicizing the bad labor practices of the employee. I'm not in college anymore, but still, my senses were screaming, "This is just unfair!" If their employer (who is also the owner of the business) were there, I would have stuffed the entire Book Three of the Labor Code into his mouth -- well, he wasn't there.

Book Three of the Labor Code is on the Conditions of Employment. It is stated there that normal working hours is eight (8) hours a week, and that the work week should only be five (5) days (with some exceptions). I could go on and on here but this is not a Short Lesson on the Labor Code.

How can I help them? I asked myself this. I would have suggested that they go to a lawyer --- blah, blah, blah --- but, what then? They'd probably quit their work in that good-for-nothing establishment and find another work with more awful conditions.

I realized that most of the things we learn(ed) in school are theories, ideals -- but the real world is much different. I'm not a pessimist but I'm not into fantasy either. I can't be the "fix-it person" and just fix everything that's wrong. I already helped them just by asking how they were and empathizing with them. I mean, how many of us would spend time talking to some strangers in this BUSY, FAST-PACED world? Sometimes, some people's problems don't need fixing. They just need someone to listen to them.

So, is our Labor Code really one of the best in the world?

I love watching movies not only for the entertainment value but for the information I get from them, and the different emotions that a movie gives me. Some movies make me feel happy, sad, angry, disgusted, frustrated...and the list goes on and on. Sometimes a movie simply gives me a positive feeling or a negative feeling. I can't exactly pinpoint the exact emotion. I just call it "positive" or "negative." Well, I think when I say "positive feeling", it's a mixture of positive emotions like happiness, fulfillment, contentment, and security, and when I say "negative feeling", it's a mixture of negative emotions like anger, frustration, and disgust.

Last night, we watched a movie and it left a negative feeling in my heart. Now, there were a lot of movies which made me feel negative after watching them but this one is different. This is a first for me. The movie that we watched was "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer". The story revolves around a man named Jean-Baptiste Grenouille who has a heightened sense of smell. He can identify an object and even a person just by his sense of smell. Somewhere in the movie, he met a woman whose aroma (or natural scent) he absolutely loved. He accidentally killed the woman, and in doing so, he realized that when the woman died, her aroma died with her. The way I interpret it, the aroma (or scent) that Grenouille smelled from the woman is actually the aroma of her soul. Naturally, when the woman died, her soul left her body bringing the aroma with her. In the progression of the movie, Grenouille became interested in the art of making perfume. He studied the art with the help of a certain perfumer. Grenouille's reason for studying the craft is "to preserve smell". I think he was obsessed with the dead woman's aroma that he wanted to find a way to preserve that smell even though the person has long gone already.

During his apprenticeship, Grenouille realized that he has no smell (which could be symbolic of his being soulless). At that point, his purpose for studying the craft of making perfumes changed. He wanted to develop or discover the ultimate smell/scent that would prove his worth as a human being.

The way I told the story, it would seem that it is not bad after all. The story seems interesting. Yes, it is interesting but it has several scenes that are quite unnerving. I don't want to narrate everything here because some people might be interested in watching this movie. After watching a movie, I felt that there's a big hole in my heart. It felt as if everything that happened in the movie is just plain wrong.

The movie has some good points though. The cinematography and production are simply impressive. The movie used around 5,000 extras, and that is enough to impress anyone. The 5,000 extras even got naked somewhere near the end of the film, and that is even more impressive (imagine, 5,000 naked people in one movie!!!).

After watching the movie, we decided to watch a fun movie. We ended the night (it was already morning actually) by watching "The Ramen Girl."

I am sort of sleepy as I am writing this. I know I have to wake myself though. I have to correct my students' exam papers after this.

This note/blog is sort of random. I just don't want to forget what my father and I talked about tonight.

My parents are here in Bacolod City tonight. They live in Cauayan,which is a little over 100 kilometers from Bacolod City. They're here to do city stuff - things that can't be done in a small town. My father will have his car fixed tomorrow at some car shop and my mother is going to SM to buy stuff (she mentioned shoes earlier). Naturally, a small town doesn't have an SM.

After we had our dinner, my father, brother and I had an after-dinner talk about some pretty serious stuff. I will not elucidate on the matters we talked about because it would make this blog/note too lengthy.

First, we talked about the alleged "end of the world" in the year 2012. Some Christians actually believe this stuff - that Jesus is going to have his Second Coming in 2012. I don't believe it and neither does my father. He said (and I seconded it) that in the Bible it is stated that only the Father knows the exact time that the Second Coming will happen (Matthew 24:36). Nobody can give a date, not even a year, as to when Jesus will come and the world will "end". Jesus can come anytime. It might be tomorrow, the day after tomorrow. It might even really be in the year 2012 (but not because man predicted it but because that's what God wants).

Second, we talked about the Second Coming. There are two views about it. The first one is that Jesus will come to get His children (the rapture) but Jesus will not actually step on earth. He will only stay in the heavens (the cloud area) and bring all His children with Him to heaven. Then, there will be a seven-year tribulation. After which, Jesus will come to earth again and actually step on earth, and He will rule the earth together with His children.The other view is that Jesus will come and gather His children in the heavens (the sky or cloud area), then He will step on earth and rule over it. I agree with the second view because, in the first view, there seems to be a Third Coming - which is really strange. I think these two views are called "millennial" and amillennial" views. (Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not a Theologian or a Bible Scholar).

Next, we also talked about "God hating sinners". There's always the argument that God loves the world, and as such, He hates sin but not the sinner. But just check Proverbs 6:16-19 and Psalm 5:5.These are only a few of the verses that state that God hates evildoers.Truth is, God hates the sinners, and in fact, God destroyed these workers of iniquity (Ammonites, etc.). However, God is also a God of love. So when the sinner repents from his ways and turns to Him, God does give His love to that repentant heart. Simply put, God does not and can not tolerate evildoers.

Lastly, we talked about God's will (or a part of it anyway). I remember someone asking me if it is also God's will if His children sin. Well, there's the directive and the permissive will of God.Let's take Jonah's example (I'm talking about Jonah the prophet). God directed (directive will) Jonah to go to Nineveh but Jonah said "no".God allowed Jonah (permissive will) to do whatever he wanted. But, of course, since Jonah disobeyed God's direct command to him, Jonah was punished (three days inside the belly of a big fish). Let's make a more modern example. Let's say, you are in a big ship and God tells you to stay in the safe areas (the dining room, bedroom, etc.) but because of your disobedient heart, you tell God that you want to go to the engine room and the cargo area, and God allows you to do so (permissive will). However, you will suffer the consequences of going to those not-so-safe areas of the ship. But then again, you're still in that ship - the ship which represents "God's will". Of course, this is just a simplistic view of a quiet complicated matter.

I might have time to write again soon and I might give a deeper discussion of the topics listed above. But then again, I might not not.

Comments are welcome.

I am receiving an online devotional entitled "Moments Together for Couples" written by Dennis and Barbara Rainey.  It is being sent to my email through Crosswalk.com.  I've been reading a few of the devotionals, and what caught my attention is the one dated June 14.  It is about FORGIVENESS.  

The most popular forgiveness verses are  Matthew 18:21,22, which state thus:

"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

According to the devotional on said date, forgiveness is putting away resentment and the desire to punish the person who wronged you.  Of course, I agree with this definition.  But the definition is NOT what caught my attention.  What caught my attention is the list of what FORGIVENESS IS NOT.  Here they are:

"Forgiveness isn't excusing or condoning sin. It doesn't involve changing your attitude about right and wrong.

Forgiveness doesn't require forgetting a person's sin. God has that power, but we do not. Forgiveness means that even though you remember the hurt, you give up the need to punish the other person.

Forgiveness doesn't require denying your pain, hurt or anger. It may take time for your feelings to catch up and begin to fall in line with your decision to forgive.

Similarly, forgiveness doesn't mean stuffing your grief. There is genuine pain due to hurt. It may take time for the wound to heal, even though you forgive the person who offended you.

Forgiveness doesn't always mean instant and full reconciliation. Even when you forgive, it can take time and effort by both parties to rebuild trust."

The first one really, really caught my full attention.  Many Christians (some of them I personally know) have the misconception that forgiveness means excusing or condoning sin.  They thought that because they have forgiven the person who wronged them, it is time to accept (or that is "be with okay with") whatever the person is doing even though it is sin.  One of the major issues/events that occurred in my life involves this very concept.  

As I have mentioned in my previous blogs/notes, I am not a perfect Christian but I am not a stupid Christian either.  I can, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of the Word of God, can determine whether or not a certain act is sin (more so if the Bible is very clear about it).  I had (take note, "had") a certain friend who was committing a certain sin.  Naturally, I strongly advised him not to continue the said sin.  We got into a fight, of course, because I would not, for any reason at all, break God's commandments to accommodate him and our friendship.  His parents tried to patch things up between us.  Sad to say, his parents just condoned his wrongdoing because of the very misconception that "forgiveness means condoning sin."   Of course, I forgive him for whatever words and acts he did against me.  But still, I would not excuse or condone his sin.  Also, as the above list states "Forgiveness doesn't always mean instant and full reconciliation.  It takes time for both parties to rebuild trust."  I could not trust a person who continues in his sin.

You (the reader) might think that I am too judgmental (and all other negative adjectives that you can think of) or that my standards are too high.  First of all, it is not MY standards that matter.  It is God's standards that matter.  I am also a person who believes that as Christians, we should correct each other of our wrongdoing especially if said wrongdoing is PUBLIC, or that is, other people can see it. (But then again, I am NOT saying that sinning in private is okay.  Sin is sin.  But it is just more embarrassing for the Christian family to have a brother/sister sinning publicly).

I am just thinking out loud.

Comments are welcome.