"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

I have always been fascinated by the divinity and humanity of Christ. And some questions related to the above passage remains a mystery to me.

How much temptation could Christ have suffered? Or did he even suffer at all being tempted? And although it says that he was “tempted, yet without sin,” would such temptation have an impact to Christ as to make him have the possibility to commit sin?

Why is it significant that I ask these things? If indeed we have a high priest such as Christ who can sympathize with our weaknesses, how intense was the temptation that he has undergone? Could he relate to the difficulty or the struggle that we do encounter every day, every hour, and even every minute from fighting temptation, in doing good and avoiding evil?

Another question related to this verse is the question of Christ’s divinity. That Christ, being tempted, therefore cannot be God if one reads James 1:13 which says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." But I will not concern myself on this issue this time in order not to muddle my concern on the depth of Christ’s temptation.

Great controversy has been raised when the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, “The Last Temptation of Christ” was published. This was considered so blasphemous that the Roman Catholic Church included it in it’s List of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Kazantzakis’ depiction of Christ is that of a very passionate and emotional human being whose mission he is trying to understand. In a scene in the dessert, a “snake with the eyes and breasts of a woman” taunted Christ and said “You are afraid of being alone. Your great-grandfather Adam had the same fear. He too shouted for help. His flesh and soul united, and woman emerged from his rib to keep him company.” In the same passage, Christ was being seduced by the serpent with the image of Mary Magdalene. “It’s Magdalene… it’s Magdalene… it’s Magdalene… it’s Magdalene you must save!” the snake hissed imperatively. “Not the Earth – forget about the Earth. It’s her, Magdalene, you must save!”

We all know that Kazantzakis’ novel has no doctrinal basis and is just a figment of his overly and overtly creative imagination. But the question cannot be denied. Has Christ undergone such temptations, or something similar to (if not even worse than) what Kazantzakis has written? Has he ever had the desire for a woman? We know that Christ had great compassion towards people, but has he ever had the same emotion as we have, having the ability to develop anger or rage? Could he have struggled and suffered the way we did? Or did he just brush them off aside casually and unperturbed?

How far could he have sympathized with us?

“If there is some end of the things we do...will not knowledge of it, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is.” - Aristotle

Life passes us by as if it was a television show without reruns. Once you miss on a show, you won’t have it replayed anymore. I remember then when there was only local channels and no cable tv. Whenever we used to watch a favorite program, I wouldn’t even attempt to leave the room even during commercial breaks for fear of missing out on a very important part of the program.

Another year has passed, and another year added to an age. But who’s counting anyway? Why would we be counting the days except just to reminisce about the past? Summer is just beginning, but what makes today different from months ago? I was just listening to Christmas tunes two days ago anyway. I would tell you the difference.

The difference between today and yesterday is that as we move on with life, we should tend to improve on it. Most people say that we should learn from our mistakes. But I say we should learn even more from our achievements . How can we learn from our past then if we don’t recognize the wrong or good we have done? Or what good is it if we only recognize the wrong and not the good?

Socrates said, “an unexamined life is not worth living.” How then should we proceed in examining our life? I could go on and say that the life I lived is a good one. But the “good” life I had may not be “good” compared to what you had. Yours could even be better or worst than mine. So what should be our standard in examining our life then?

The question of what is good and what is bad has been a question of morality since man has been gifted the ability to think. I use the word “gifted” because I recognize that this ability is not of our own. But then again, that would be a different topic.

If I may continue after I interrupted my own thought process. I realize that people have the need to go back, at least once in a while to their past. I realize that people have the need to compare their life to others. I realize that people have the need to at least once in a while, stop with what is keeping them busy at the moment. It is no wonder why people on every occasion go on a vacation, “retreat” or a pilgrimage.

As I step back and review my life, I would say that I had a slow, direct yet unpredictable life. I wanted so much but had so few, but who didn’t? I had the constant need to trust a supernatural force called God, yet also had the temerity to doubt and question His very existence. I still have a long way to go, and it will be an interesting journey.

As we examine our life, we should ask ourselves, “am I missing the mark set before me?” Aim well.

Just recently, our company filed a petition to the court to convert its trust fund into mutual fund. To put it simply, if ever the court will approve the petition, the policy contracts of the planholders will be exchanged into mutual share, wherein they will end up with certificates of a mutual fund. The plan therefore of the company is to visit our branches and explain to our planholders.

Being one of the officers of our company, I am tasked to visit at least two of our branches and explain the “mutualization plan.”

This puts me in a dilemma.

As an individual, I am not in total agreement to the management plan. I believe, for lack of a better word, that the planholders are “short-changed.” That in filing for such a petition, the company is reneging on its contract. Personally, I believe that this is a one-way decision. The argument of pre-need companies is that the SEC did not consult them in its implementation of the Actuarial Reserve Liability (ARL). However, the pre-need companies are acting in the same manner by implementing decisions which did not consult the planholders.

As an officer and an employee, I do not question the management’s decision in its court petition. It is a business establishment, and must do everything in its power to survive the business. The board of directors are also saying that the welfare of the planholders is the company’s priority. Thus, a decision must be made that will strike a balance between the company’s survival and the planholder’s welfare. But is there such a thing?

I mentioned to my boss my hesitancy to travel. He replied that he will not make me do things that is against my will. In end up going after all.

Should I disobey my duties if it goes against my principle? If I do so, should I resign from my job and face the possibility of being jobless for how many months? Or should I just ignore my principles, face the planholders and explain to them something which even I don’t agree with?

In the news, the headline reads “Papal Nuncio hails RP abolition of death penalty.”

The news writes “PAPAL Nuncio Fernando Filoni has hailed the abolition of the death penalty law by Congress, saying this reflects the government's respect for life.”

If abolition of death penalty means respect for life, what does it say to those whose lives were not respected by such offenders? Where does one draw the line between being humane and being just?

Below are excerpts from two US Supreme Court Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Antonin Scalia. Blackmun begins his opinion with a description of how death penalty is administered:

"Bruce Edwin Callins will be executed by the state of Texas. Intravenous tubes attached to his arms will carry the instrument of death, a toxic fluid designed specifically for the purpose of killing human beings. The witnesses...will behold Callins...strapped to a gurney, seconds away from extinction. Within days, or perhaps hours, the memory of Callins will begin to fade. The wheels of justice will churn again, and somewhere, another jury or another judge will have the...task of determining whether some human being is to live or die."

Scalia replies with a description of the murders committed:

"Justice Blackmun begins his statement by describing with poignancy the death of a convicted murderer by lethal injection. He chooses, as the case in which to make that statement, one of the less brutal of the murders that regularly come before us, the murder of a man ripped by a bullet suddenly and unexpectedly, with no opportunity to prepare himself and his affairs, and left to bleed to death on the floor of a tavern. The death-by-injection which Justice Blackmun describes looks pretty desirable next to that. It looks even better next to some of the other cases currently before us, which Justice Blackmun did not select as the vehicle for his announcement that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, for example, the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

We live in a world where values are warped.

Note: check out Angel on DeathRow, a documentary of Frontline, the (PBS) Public Broadcasting Service's flagship public affairs series.

Irregardless. I often get uneasy whenever I hear this word. The word “irregardless” is redundant. The negative prefix “ir” and the negative suffix “less” makes it a “double negative.”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition reads:

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.