Top 10 Things I Don't Like About The Harry Potter Series

J.K. Rowling just announced the release of Pottermore, and it’s going into Beta.  Not yet clear on what’s the extent of the site/game would be, but the advertisement gave us some idea.  And the last Harry Potter movie is out.  Harry Potter is at its peak.

I read the books and watched the movies.  I have read all the books, starting from my late elementary days and finished, as the series ended, when I was in college.  No, I never have had any HP book.  Never bought one.  Nor ask for one or was given one as a gift.  But I borrowed from friends – from Meg when I was in elementary and then from DY when I was in high school and college (fortunately, she was also my classmate in college).  Both were die-hard fans of HP, but I was never one.  Yes, I borrowed the books and been a fan to the extent that I wanted to read and know the whole story.  But that’s it.  No, I didn’t hate it.  I have enjoyed it.  I found HP entertaining.  But it never really won my “love” as a literature.  Nothing really exceptionally awesome about it.        

There are several things about the Harry Potter series that I don’t like at all.  Here are the top ten of those things that bugged me about the series:      

10.) WHAT HAPPENED TO TIME TRAVELLING?

In Book 3, Hermione took an overload of subjects.  To help her, Prof. McGonagall gave Hermione a “Time-Turner” that allowed her to time travel. Thus, she was able to study all her lessons and also have time rest.  In the climax of the story, Hermione revealed this fact to Harry, and they both travelled back in time to save Sirius Black from being sent to Azkaban.  (They were also able to save Buckbeak the Hippogriff from being executed and save Harry’s past self from the Dementors along the way.)

After that, it seemed that time travel was forgotten as it was never ever mentioned or used in the next books.  I mean, come on, why not?  Time travel magic is one very INVALUABLE magic, why didn’t Harry and friends used it again in their subsequent adventures, especially when they were searching for the Horcruxes?  Time travel could have helped them plenty in their adventures and fights.  And why no other wizard used time travel?  Why didn’t Voldemort?  Come to think of it, why did McGonagall gave such powerful thing as a "Time-Turner" to a mere student like Hermione?

Sure, fictional stories will always have some plot holes, and we should give writers some slack sometimes when they create plot holes.  But there are forgivable plot holes and there are annoyingly unforgivable plot holes.  And J.K. Rowling’s usage of time travel annoyed me greatly.  There are plot conveniences in fiction that can be “put in a drawer” after it solves a plot problem/conflict, but something like time travel is not simple.  Time travel is controversial and big.  Time travel is a powerful plot convenience, and it can never be dismissed easily after it had its use in the story.  If the author chooses to “put it in a drawer” to never touch it again in the entire storyline, it would always leave an annoying feeling of “if such powerful convenience exists in the story’s universe, why isn’t it used again?”

I think Rowling never thought how big time travelling really is when she tackled it.  

9.) DUMBLEDORE IS GAY??!!!

Dumbledore is one of the best characters in the series.  A powerfully badass wizard that is probably the only one with no fear of Voldemort.  A master tactician, as he employed espionage in the war, planned his death, and even able to manipulate events after his death.  He is also a great fatherly mentor to Harry.  

J.K. Rowling ruined his image with an admission in an interview that Dumbledore is gay.  

I couldn’t find a more perfect reaction than this famous lolcat:

Come on, Rowling?!  Really?!  Why not just leave the debate of Dumbledore’s sexuality to the fans?  I mean, this is uncomfortable.  This erases the “fatherly mentor to Harry” image of Dumbledore.  What is now the implication of their regular private talks throughout the series?  Yup, there’s no explicit sexual pressure content between them, but we can’t get it out of our minds what the real “affection” between them means after learning that Dumbledore is gay. AWKWARD!!!   

8.) "ORDER OF THE PHOENIX" AND "DUMBLEDORE'S ARMY" WERE UNDERUSED

Book 5 introduced us to the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore’s Army.  And, for me, they lacked exposure throughout the series.  

Book 5’s title was “…and the Order of the Phoenix”, and yet, they failed to really shine until they went “cavalry”, arriving to rescue Harry and friends in the last minute from Voldemort and his Death Eaters in the Ministry of Magic.  There was no real detailed “Order of the Phoenix” vs. “Death Eaters” skirmish.  

Then there’s Harry’s “Dumbledore’s Army”.  It was really awesome considering they are made up of Hogwarts students from different houses.  They were inexperienced and juvenile, but they were self-trained and roughly combat-ready.  And yet, they never really had some action together as a group.  Aside from the usual Hermione and Ron, only Neville and Luna of the DA came with Harry to face-off with the Death Eaters at the Ministry of Magic.   The only time the full roster of DA really saw action was in the “Final Battle” at Hogwarts, but, hey, everybody was fighting by then.  

Maybe it’s just me, but I haven’t got enough of some DA and Order of the Phoenix action.         

7.) VOLDEMORT IS NOT THAT MENACING AT ALL

It is said that what makes a story great is a great villain.  The Harry Potter story’s villain was promising at the start.  He’s so evil and frightening that even the mere mention of his name makes the wizard community tremble.  When people mentioned of him, they address him as “You-Know-Who” or “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”.  That is badass.  It made us expect that the Harry Potter series will have the greatest villain ever conceptualized in fiction.

What we got was this noseless clown:

Ok, to be fair, Ralph Fiennes played the Voldemort character well.  And Voldemort is a bad, mad, and actually pretty decent villain.  The only problem was he was not as villainous as advertized.  I was expecting Voldemort to be a combination of an explosive, insane, mass-murdering and genocidal Adolf Hitler, and an intelligent and calculating, Hannibal Lecter-like, cannibalistic, psychotic/sociapathic, terrifyingly vile and disturbed, serial killing, sexual predator.  

As I’ve said, Voldemort was a decent villain.  But compared to what he was being hyped, he came out as a “meh” villain.  

For me, two other antagonists in “Harry Potter” were better than Voldemort:  Bellatrix Lestrange (which was played brilliantly by Helena Bonham Carter in the movie) and the soul-sucking Dementors. 

6.) EPILOGUE

I didn’t like the epilogue of the series.  

In the epilogue, Harry and friends are adults already. Harry is married to Ginny, and they have kids of their own to send to Hogwarts.  The epilogue of Harry Potter didn’t give the “wrap-up” feel that I wanted, which could have been done if it just told the immediate aftermath.  The epilogue immediately fast-forwarded to several years later.  A few days or even a few years would have been enough.  

Most importantly, by doing an epilogue that only wraps the chapter regarding Voldemort instead of fast-forwarding to an adult Harry, the option of writing another Harry Potter saga afterwards is comfortably open for Rowling.  Sure, it could still be written, but knowing what would happen in its future (because of the adult Harry epilogue), it will lack flavor or suspense.  There will be “Ah, Harry will survive this” when he’s placed in a life-threatening situation or “Harry would marry Ginny anyway” when a new love interest arrives for Harry.  So Rowling is on a disadvantage on creating the necessary elements of another captivatingly and unpredictable Harry tale when its ultimate end is already known.        

5.) BROOMSTICKS

Wands in the HP world?  Stereotypical but still cool.  Especially with the unique “recipe” of wand for each individual.     

Owls as pets and mail couriers?  Ok, e-mail is still more practical, but, hey, that is still interesting and creative.

Sorting Hat?  That’s refreshingly unique!

Broomsticks for transportation?  Er… It’s stereotypical and stupid.  Just think of it for a minute.  Broomsticks.  Regardless of the fact that you can fly by the use of such things, I still can’t find myself being excited with a broomstick.  “Oooh!  It’s a Nimbus 2000!!!” Really retarded getting thrilled about receiving a broomstick for Christmas.

I mean… come on!!!  Broomsticks???!!!   

4.) QUIDDITCH

Quidditch is a stupid sport.  It is probably the most ridiculous game invented for fiction.  Ever.  

For starters, we have players riding on broomsticks flying around.  I already pointed out in the previous item that I found broomsticks silly.

A Quidditch team is made up of Chasers, Beaters, Keeper, and Seeker.  Each team has three Chasers whose function in offense is to move the “Quaffle” ball, by passing among themselves, across the field and then shoot it through any of the three goal hoops.  Each goal is worth 10 points.  The opposing Chasers, playing defense, tries to steal the “Quaffle” when it is being advanced by the opposing team.  Each team has two Beaters, armed with two bats, whose function is to protect their teammates from two “Bludger” balls.  Bludgers are iron balls bewitched to fly around randomly hitting players.  And the Keeper, if it’s not yet obvious, guards the three goal hoops by blocking the shot attempts of the opposing Chasers.   

So, disregarding the broomsticks and just considering the flying around, scoring balls through goal rings, and players getting knocked off by charmed bowling balls, Quidditch seem to be a pretty decent and logical game.  

My beef is with the Seeker.  The aim of the Seeker is to capture the Golden Snitch before the opposing Seeker does.  The Golden Snitch is a small golden ball with wings that randomly flies around the field.  The game ends whenever the Snitch is caught by a Seeker, and the team in which the Seeker belongs in gets 150 points, which is equivalent to 15 goals.   And that ladies and gentlemen is batshit insane!  So unless a team scores 16 goals more than the opposing team, whoever gets the snitch wins.  

It’s like two teams are playing soccer, and at the same time, two guys are playing checkers.  Whoever wins the checker game gives his team 15 goals.  So even if your soccer team is made up of rookies and injured players and your opponent has a team of athletic and talented Beckhams and Rolandos, as long as you have a mean checker-playin’ geezer, you will win the game.  To see how ridiculously unfair that is, try scoring 15 goals in soccer.

And this is the biggest sport in the wizard world?!  Even if they’re flying around and being knocked off by flying bowling balls, I still find basketball, hockey, or American football more exciting.  Muggles are not missing out at all.  

3.) THE SUPPORTING CAST IS MORE INTERESTING THAN THE MAIN CHARACTER

There is only one character that is acceptable to be more interesting than the hero of the story, and that is the villain of the story.  Sometimes, two or three more supporting characters can be more interesting than the main character, and that could still be okay.

But in Harry Potter, it’s as if half of the roster of characters is more interesting than Harry.  Let me enumerate who I think are more interesting characters than Harry Potter: Hermione Granger, the Weasley twins, Albus Dumbledore, Sirius Black, Severus Snape, Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Nymphadora Tonks, Remus Lupin, Luna Lovegood, and Neville Longbottom.   

Congrats, Harry, you are, however, still more interesting than Ron Weasley.

To be fair, I found that there are times that Harry could shine above the others (especially when he willingly went to Voldemort to be “killed”.  That took guts).  But the entirety of the series, I found his supporting characters more likable.

My favorite HP character is Luna Lovegood.  She’s a charming girl.  Naive-like but insightful and smart (a Ravenclaw after all).  Almost impervious to emotion.  She has the air of a conspiracy theorist, but without the annoying paranoia.  And I love that dreamy voice and unblinking eyes. I mean you can probably make an attempt on startling her with a "Boo!" and she would give you a bored look in return.

Because of Helena Bonham Carter’s excellent portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange, she became my favorite villain in the HP universe.  As I’ve said earlier, I find her a more interesting villain than Voldemort.

Severus Snapes was awesome playing as Dumbledore’s double-agent.  I didn’t mind that he died in the story, but it would have been better if he died fighting – explicitly revealing to Voldemort that he was loyal to Dumbledore all along – rather than being killed by Nagini.

Neville Longbottom’s character development was the best in the 7-book (8-movie) series.  From spineless weakling to the brave leader of Dumbledore’s Army (in the last book) and killer of Nagini – last Horcrux of Voldemort.  In fact, it would have been more interesting if Neville was the real “chosen one” after all and not Harry (since the prophecies for Harry as a “chosen one” applies to Neville as well), and that Dumbledore – smart strategist as he is – is just using Harry as a “red herring” to protect Neville.  Thus, when Harry (after realizing he’s a Horcrux of Voldemort) voluntarily gets himself killed (really killed) by Voldemort, it was Neville who would have finally defeated Voldemort.  That would have been an awesome plot twist!  It could have been a better development than what was the actual.        

2) IT'S OVERRATED

I am not saying that the Harry Potter series was bad.  No, as I’ve said right from the start, I have enjoyed it.  But it’s definitely overrated.

The Harry Potter series was okay, but it’s not as good as everybody believes it to be.  The success and praise it received is not proportional to the success and praise it deserved.  There are plenty of better fantasy books than Harry Potter.  More insightful, more intelligent, and more well-told than Harry Potter. 

Not all Harry Potter fans are literature fans.  In fact, most of Harry Potter’s readers and fans, probably, are not well-read or lacked the exposure on other books other than HP.  They just concluded that Harry Potter is “the best” since it’s the only book they have read.  It’s like concluding – as a critic wrote somewhere – that “a Big Mac is the best before even tasting lobster.” 

Aside from lack of exposure to better fantasy books, another reason for HP being overrated is the “bandwagon” effect.  People like to join the “in” crowd, and since Harry Potter is “in”, they jumped into it.  But HP is not your ordinary fad.  Fad disappears or goes extinct.  But the momentum built by the HP bandwagon is, already, impressively too large to stop.  And because of this, the idea that “Harry Potter is the best”, that was first “believed” for the sole purpose of joining the “in” crowd, becomes a real belief by the fans as a collective unit; there’s no boundary between bandwagon and real fans anymore.            

  

1) HERALDING TWILIGHT

The worst thing about “Harry Potter” is it paved the way for “Twilight”.  When the “Harry Potter” book series finished, it created a void in the “overrated” genre-environment created by HP.  And, unfortunately, the one that catered to fill that void was this trash “Twilight”.  “Harry Potter” is greatly overrated, but at least it’s an enjoyable good read.  “Twilight”, however, is bad and outrageously overrated.  

A Christian's Transformation and Sanctification: From Zombie to Immortal

Every Christian experiences both an immediate and long-term transformation when they are born again.  

To be Born Again is being transformed from this…

…to this…

So from zombies to immortals.  An extreme to an extreme.  That’s how dramatic God’s transforming and sanctifying power changes a person.  

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, Mankind’s nature became sinful.  And, as stated by the Good Book, the wages of sin is death.  Not only is Man destined for physical death, but Man is destined for eternal death as well.  Due to this, humans are as good as dead.  Humans are, in accurate spiritual technicality, walking dead – zombies.  

Just as zombies are mindlessly walking around causing mayhem (most notably, murdering or eating people), humans as spiritual zombies will go sinning no matter what (being slaves of their sinful nature).  And just as zombies are unaware that they are dead, humans as spiritual zombies are unaware that they are spiritually dead.  The spiritual zombies are generally blind of their own wretchedness and their terrifying end.  Thus, they will not desire salvation when they are not aware that they are in need of saving in the first place. 

But to those whom God opened the eyes, they will be able to realize their miserable condition, see the hope and salvation that is in Jesus Christ alone, and ask for forgiveness and salvation.  As soon as they have asked Jesus Christ to become their personal Savior and Lord, they are Born Again – they are “resurrected” from being spiritually dead.  From that moment on, they cease to be zombies but immortals.  As the theme of Highlander (by the band “Queen”) goes, the immortals are “born to be kings… princes of the universe.”  And Christians are immortals, because, after being saved from Eternal Death, God gifted them Eternal Life!  They are adopted to be and have the right to be called Children of God – “born to be kings… princes of the universe.”       

As I’ve mentioned earlier, a Christian’s transformation – or “Quickening”, since we’re using Highlander analogy – is both immediate and long-term.  The immediate transformation is one of identity.  No longer slaves of sin, but children of God.  No longer zombies, but immortals.  However, it doesn’t mean that after this transformation of identity, one is free from sinning.  When someone is still a spiritual zombie, it is his or her essence to do evil.  Once someone is made into an immortal by the justification of Jesus Christ, whenever he or she sins, he or she is no longer acting in his or her essence but is actually acting outside of his or her character.  To “fix” this, this is where the long-term process of transformation comes in.  It is called sanctification.  

It is true that immortality (i.e. Eternal Life) is obtained immediately when one is born again, but the full realization of immortality (or the Christian’s “Happening”, in accordance to the Highlander analogy) is after the resurrection and then entry to Heaven.  Thus, sanctification works until an immortal gets to that point.  Sanctification is the process of being set apart by being made holy through the merits and justification of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Sanctification is necessary since it is said in the Good Book that sinners will not be allowed to enter Heaven in the Second Coming of Jesus, thus, during a Christian’s lifetime, he or she undergoes sanctification that by the time Jesus returns, he or she is made fully holy to be presented to the Father.  And once Heaven is entered, the Happening shall be experienced – the enjoyment of God’s glorious presence forever!

Interesting Things About the American Revolutionary War

It’s the 4th of July, and it’s Filipino-USA Friendship Day for us Filipinos.  But for our American masters friends, they celebrate their Independence Day.    (Technically, July 4th in the USA is still tomorrow, but, hey, it’s already July 4th in our timezone.)  The 4th of July is not the date when the American colonists won against the British in their Revolutionary War, but rather, it was the date where the Colonies – then at war with the Empire – declared they are now independent states, i.e. the Declaration of Independence (actually, July 2, but was finalized at the 4th). 

Nonetheless, this article is about the Revolutionary War, or rather some overlooked or not much talked interesting aspects and facts about the War.  For the record, the American Revolutionary War is one of the best war stories there are in history.  A brilliant and dramatic underdog “fighting for freedom” story.  But there is more to it.

• The British was wrong, of course, in forcing taxes upon colonists without representation.  But it was said that they didn’t collect much tax either.  The tax imposed was on trade only (prior to the taxing related to the French-Indian War).  But smuggling was rampant in the colonies.  Merchants were able of sailing past authorities and avoiding taxes.  And the British didn’t bother much in stopping the smuggling.  
• In the 1750’s, American colonists got into a territorial dispute with the French and their Indian allies.  The colonies requested help from Great Britain and the British obliged by sending an army over there.  Thus, the French-Indian War started.  Eventually, the British won, but with the cost of heavy losses on life and money.  The British then raised tax on both the home isles and the colonies to compensate for the money lost.  It’s understandable (to an extent) that the colonists were pissed that they are being taxed when they are not represented.  But on the other hand, it was for their war in the first place and it’s only reasonable that they share some of the burden in compensating for it.
• It is general knowledge that one of the fuses that lit up the war was the Stamp Act (one of the taxes imposed after the French-Indian War).  The British Parliament insisted that they have the right to tax the colonists (as already explained previously).  The colonists claimed that they can’t be taxed without representation.  But you know who really was all for the Stamp Act?  Benjamin Franklin.  Yes, that Benjamin Franklin.  One of the “Founding Fathers”.  He was kind of fiercely loyal to the British Crown.  And old Ben at that time was the colonies’ representative to the Crown.  But because crown-loving, Stamp Act-fan Ben was spending most of his time in Britain, he was clueless that his own people were pissed of the Stamp Act, thus, he was not able to get the colonists’ sentiments across to the crown.
• Another fuse was the Boston Massacre, in which it is popularly (but erroneously) believed that British soldiers fired at unarmed civilians, killing dozens in cold-blood.  In truth, a douchebag colonist named Samuel Adams wanted to incite a rebellion in Boston.  He had his followers – the Sons of Liberty – throw insults at a British soldier.  When the soldier did not respond, the mob threw rocks and other things at him.  Fellow British soldiers came to their comrade’s aid.  But the mob continued throwing rocks at the British and dared the soldiers to fire at them.  The soldiers had no choice but to fire at them in self-defense.  When the smoke cleared, three men were dead.  The soldiers were put to trial, and John Adams – one of the “Founding Fathers” and the second president of the future USA – was their defense lawyer.  Adams, though he disagreed with the British, knew that the soldiers were only defending themselves, and won the case for them.  Soldiers (and policemen, as well), up to the present day, have several times suffered this type of treatment.  Though they are only defending themselves, they ended up as the bad guys.  And it’s not all the time that these soldiers are vindicated (like the British soldiers in Boston).  Just sad.  Oh, where did the “Boston Massacre” came from?  Blame the media.  Even then, they tend to exaggerate “massacres”.
• Another significant happening in Boston was the Boston Tea Party.  It culminated with colonists led by the Sons of Liberty (remember those jerks?) dressed up as Indians, raided the British ships that held the cargos of tea that were forced on the colonists to buy and dumped them to the sea.  Now let’s dig a bit deeper on the story… Another way of the British taxing the colonies was the Tea Act.  (By the way, at this point all the other taxes were repealed now, and only the Tea Act remained, but still the colonists didn’t want to pay for it.) The Tea Act expanded the British East India Company’s monopoly on the tea on the colonies, selling excess tea at a reduced price.  It would have provided the colonies superior and cheaper tea than what they get from smugglers.  But the colonies were still pissed about being taxed (without being represented) and maybe also of getting told on what to buy (even if it was a better brand).  They also had the legitimate fear of that this was only the start and the British might extend the monopoly on other goods as well in the future.  But it is also worth considering that smugglers like John Hancock (yup, another “Founding Father”) would be the ones that was going be severely hit by the Tea Act.  That’s why they were the most active and loudest that oppose the act, carrying out a campaign of raising self-awareness (i.e. smear campaign) across the colonies.   
• 5,000 blacks fought for the Continental Army.  Baron Ludwig von Closen, an officer in the French Army, once observed that the best regiment in the Continental Army was the one with about 75% African-American soldiers.
• Women went out to War with their husbands.  They helped by cooking and sewing and washing for the men.  Among these women, the most famous is “Molly Pitcher”.  She was nicknamed such because she brought a pitcher of water to soldiers – sometimes, even under fire.  In the Battle of Monmouth, her husband – a cannon rammer – fell unconscious in battle from heat exhaustion.  “Molly Pitcher” took the place of her husband as a cannon rammer.  During the battle (which the Americans would eventually win), she caught George Washington’s eye.  Washington sought her after the battle and rewarded her courage by issuing her a warrant as a non-commissioned officer.  She would be nicknamed “Sergeant Molly” from then on.   
• In 1799, there were less soldiers fighting against the British than the Loyalists (colonists loyal and fighting for the British Crown).
• The Continental Army was brilliant in their espionage during the War.  They employed spies and double agents.  The most famous of them is Lieutenant Nathan Hale.  When he was captured by the British and was sentenced to hang, his badass last words were “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” 
• Military strategy was greatly different between the Continental Army and the British Redcoats.  The Redcoats were well-disciplined and well-trained professional soldiers.  Being an ocean away from home, they have trouble in logistics of supplies and reinforcements, thus they follow a conservative approach.  Their battle philosophy follows the warfare philosophy of the time in which they were organized in lines and fired simultaneously with muskets before charging with bayonets.   The Redcoats also had Hessians – German mercenaries – fighting with them.  The British goal was not necessarily to destroy the colonists but to force them to surrender and to submit back to the Empire.  Actually, the British were reluctant in fighting them because, no matter the differences, the colonists were they brothers.  Still, the British Army was a proud one (they would be the best in the world for some time) and wants to show their superiority over the Continental Army.  The Continental Army is mostly composed of militia.  Plenty of incentives – like money and property (and freedom for black slaves) – were offered to inspire recruitment.  French officers were the ones who mostly trained this makeshift army.  The Continental Army’s successes were mainly from use of guerrilla warfare, since they were usually being owned by the Redcoats in traditional face-off battle.  The British traditional formation was inutile in these surprise attacks by the Continental militiamen hiding behind trees and foliage as the British Redcoats pass through.  But the British, though, also had their own Light Infantry and managed to outfight the American guerrillas at times.  The Continental Army also had the legendary “minutemen” – the “elite” of the Continentals, as they were a highly mobile force that can be deployed rapidly to respond to an immediate need or threat.    
• The Spanish, the French, and the Dutch provided supplies, ammunition, and weapons to the Continental Army.  At first, they aided the colonists in secret, but then, seeing that the British is vulnerable, openly declared war.  This coalition – Spanish, French, Dutch, and American – would be too much for the British, making them ultimately lose claim on the colonies.  However, the plans of invading other British interests in the world and even the Isles themselves prove futile to the colonies’ allies.  Spain’s main reason for declaring war against the British was to recapture Gibraltar and Minorca, which was taken by the British from them in 1704.  French and Spanish forces managed take Minorca but the British held on to Gibraltar.  The British Empire also managed to hold on to their other key colonies in the West Indies.  In India, the British Empire managed to capture Indian and Dutch outposts there, establishing sole control of the area.  Though they lost the 13 colonies, the British Empire, in a world-wide scale, managed to establish their superiority, emerging as the most powerful nation in the 19th century (which would last until the early 20th century).  
• I am a George Washington fan.  I believe he was a good general.  But a brilliant strategist?  Hell, no.  Even Washington had admitted that he has limited and contracted knowledge on military matters on the large-scale.  He had actually more battle losses than wins.   He had made several missteps, was unable to make rapid field decisions and even froze at times, which had earned him losses.  Much of America’s tactical successes were because of the French.  Still, I believe him to be a good general.  Why?  Because being a good general is not all about being a brilliant tactician.  Washington’s exemplary character and work ethic made him an inspiration to his men.  Throughout those turmoil-filled and discouraging years, he had managed to keep the Continental Army from breaking apart, but instead kept them together to persevere until they gained victory.     

Top 10 English Words

I have always loved words more than numbers.  Yep, numbers are actually kind of cool, but words, for me, have more depth.  Numbers are objectively cold.  A 1 is a 1.  A 1 can never be a 2.  They are what they are.  Words, however, are subjectively dynamic in its articulation.  A word can have a variety of meanings or usages.  Take for example the word “pretty”.   Pretty can mean beautiful.  It can be used as an adverb, as in “pretty much” or “pretty good”.  In fact, we can use “pretty” as an adverb in a phrase that is opposite of the meaning of “pretty” per se.  The phrase is “pretty ugly”.        

Words are colorful and empathic.   And among them, here are my top ten favorite English words…

10.) INTELLIGENCE

Among English words, I found “intelligence” to have the most subtle but obvious implication of power.  We are now in the Information Age.  There’s no more important asset than intelligence.  Wars are won by intelligence (yes, espionage-related intelligence).  In politics and business, the better the intelligence is, the better the decision making – for earning future yield – will be.  Nowadays, information and knowledge are the cards in the poker game of life.  The better the quality of these means the better cards in your hand, thus better chances of winning.

9.) VERSATILE

This adjective imply that the object (usually a person) is well-rounded.  Multi-faceted.  Multi-talented.  Flexible.  Wide area of knowledge, interests and/or skills.  That means having depth.  Which ultimately means the person is fun, interesting, can fit in well, and not boring.  It’s one of the most valuable descriptions or compliments that one can ever give somebody.

8.) LOVELY

I consider the word “lovely” as the highest adjective to describe something or someone that is beautiful, pretty, or gorgeous.  So whenever I use the word, it means I have given my highest praise on the degree of beauty, appeal, or pleasantness.

 

7.) COOL

Cool has been used as slang for something that is good, or nice, or interesting, or remarkable, or amazing, etc.  And that’s a reason why I like the word.  It can have different intensity of meaning and ways to handle it.  But the main reason I like the word “cool” is because of its definition as being calm.  It portrays an appearance of tranquility and control, even in midst of excitement or pressure.

  

6.) IF

I once heard someone speak that “If” is the biggest word in the world.  Because it means a condition… a stipulation… a requirement… an assumption.  Before an effect or event to happen, the “if” should happen or be met first.    

5.) THUS

I also like its synonyms “therefore”, “then”, “hence”, and “ergo”.  I like the word (and its synonyms) because it presents a conclusion after an analysis or evaluation.      

4.) GRACE

Grace means a gift that is undeserved and unearned.  It means a love that is unconditional.  Instead of punishment, reward or blessing is received.  As a Christian, the word “grace” is a sweet sound to the ears.  For us Christians, it means Christ dying for our sins, saving us from eternal death and suffering in Hell, and giving us eternal life in Heaven instead.  Ah, to know why “grace” is one of my favorite English words, I’ll let John Newton explain (read the lyrics of the immortal song he had penned, i.e. “Amazing Grace”) in my behalf. He articulated perfectly how so, er, amazing grace is.

3.) LOGIC

When the word “logic” is mentioned, it gives a feeling of rationality, sound judgment, and order.  The word “logic” came from the Greek word “logos” which means “sentence” or “reason”.  I love the word “logic” because I love the essence of “logic”.  It is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.  I sincerely believe that logic, if wielded properly and when based on true premises, will lead to the truth.  And I always desire the truth.

2.) AWESOME

People, including me of course, tend to overuse both “cool” and “awesome” to describe almost anything, but more so with “awesome”.  “Awesome” is greater than “cool”.  If I think of “lovely” as the highest description for the degree of beauty and such, I think of “awesome” as the greatest of all positive adjectives.  It is the highest form of adjectives like good, great, glorious, fascinating, amazing, remarkable, and such. 

1.) WHY

“Why” is my most favorite word because when the “why” is answered, something is made clearer.  The “why” is the most complicated to answer.  Usually, in the case of “what”, “who”, “when”, and “how”, the answers are just exact objective facts.  But the “why” requires further deliberation since the answers are all about motivations, purposes, and reasons.  When the “why” is known, there is a deeper understanding of the whole picture.      

Thank You, Dallas Mavericks

Congratulations to the Dallas Mavericks for winning the 2011 NBA championship.  This is their first in franchise history and coming off the team that beat them in '06 Finals makes this sweeter for them.  

After my Lakers got eliminated, I was rooting for the no. 8 Memphis Grizzlies to win the championship since that would be an epic underdog story-journey.  But I was not bitter at all when the Mavs were able to beat my team.  No, I saw that they have more heart than the Lakers in their series, and if the Lakers can’t have the championship this year, then the team that beat them should have it.  So, when the Grizzlies got beaten by the Oklahoma Thunder, I have no problem rooting for the Mavs next.  The Dallas Mavericks deserve this title.  They had already beaten the defending champs in the second round, thus, the championship was theirs for the taking already.  I believe my man Kobe also share the same sentiments with me.

Dirk Nowitzk will now go down in history as one of the greatest players that played this game.  He already has his All-Star and All-NBA selections.  He got his MVP.  All he needed was the validation that he’s a true winner.  And now, he’s an NBA champion and his Finals MVP is his certification that he led his team there.  One funny thing I want to point out was the different reactions between Dirk and Kobe’s game clinching performances.  Though both deserved their Finals MVP, and had been a great impact in the game-clinchers despite poor shooting performances (Dirk: 9-27 shooting, Kobe: 6-24 shooting), Dirk received praises while on the other hand Kobe mostly received criticisms when the Lakers won last year.  Comments on Dirk’s went like: “despite shooting poorly at the start, Dirk scored 10 points in the 4^th quarter to lead his team to the championship.”  While on Kobe, the comments went like this: “choking in the biggest game of his career, Kobe’s teammates bailed him out and carried him to the championship.”  In spite of the fact that Kobe grabbed 15 rebounds in that game despite of being a guard and scored a game high 23 points, 10 – like Nowitzki – of which came in the 4^th quarter, in the context of a gritty and epic defensive Game 7 battle where both teams shot poorly!  In Dirk’s case, it was Jason Terry who really majorly carried the offensive load in that Game 6.  Just shows how Kobe suffers from unfairness and bias of haters.

 

Jason Kidd, 38 years-old, and 17 years in the league finally got his title.  But he did not get it by “hitchhiking” with a good team, i.e. the Gary Payton-route.  Though past his prime, he was still a major piece and a starter in his championship-winning team.  Kidd was definitely the best point guard of the past decade (2000s).  Sorry, Steve Nash, but that’s true.  J-Kidd was better than you.  Despite of your two MVPs, you never had Kidd’s rebounding and defensive skills.  I also think that Kidd was a better passer than you, Stevie.  And now he got his much deserved ring.  Will you ever get yours?  (You might if you became a Laker next season. They really need a good point guard right now.  LOL)    

Jason “the Jet” Terry impressed me much this series.  Lamar Odom might be the Sixth-Man-of-the-Year this season, but Jet was the “Sixth-Man-of-the-Year” of the playoffs.  Coming off the bench, he was almost like a Kobe-esque gunslinger.  He was kind of badass this Finals.  He commented that the best defense he had encountered in the playoffs was Portland’s and that LeBron – an All-Defensive first team selection and who was brilliant in defending the MVP Derek Rose – won’t be able to shut him down.  And he backed those words.   Though there were times LeBron contained him, he was able to torch him most of the Finals.  I also like how Jet acknowledged God in the Mavs’ success in his interviews.

The rest of the Mavs roster was fun as well.  Tyson Chandler’s rebounding was a great help and he did some damage inside.  Former All-Stars Shawn Marion and Peja Stojakovic finally get their rings as well.  But I wonder why Peja never got any significant playing time in the Finals?  Could it be because his shooting expertise (he was a killer during the Laker series) couldn’t compensate for his poor defense?  But I trust Rick Carlisle had his reasons (more about him later).  Shawn Marion and Deshawn Stevenson were significant contributors in defense and also gave very important help in offense.  Along with Kidd, the three of them were Dallas’ major defensive force in slowing LeBron and D-Wade.  The starting shooting guard for the Dallas in the Finals was 5’9 J.J. Barea and the Heat couldn’t figure out how to stop the spark he gave the offense.  He was not extremely fast, but the little guy was able enough to tear up Miami’s defense.  Brian Cardinal saw some surprisingly significant playing time this playoffs.  And he was a true “garbage man”, willing to sacrifice his body in taking charges, and had the veteran smarts in how to fit in the offense.  Also take note that the Mavericks missed their starting All-Star shooting guard Caron Butler for the majority of the season and all throughout the playoffs due to injury.  This made me think how strong the Mavs could have been if Butler was healthy.  

Rick “Jim Carrey” Carlisle is sure is smart.  He was a master of rotation, match-ups, and adjustment.  He was able to assemble a perfect lineup to dictate the game or to resolve a given need, respond with strategic adjustments immediately, and was able to utilize his roster’s strengths effectively as he brought the best out of them.  The Heat’s Erik Spoelstra is a good coach, but he was definitely outcoached by Carlisle in this one.  Kudos to Carlisle.  In this Finals, the man showcased how smart he really is. 

But the fact that the Miami Heat lost is more important than the fact that the Mavs won the title.  If the Finals was between the Mavs and the Bulls, I would have still rooted for the Mavs, but I would have not cared much if the Bulls did beat the Mavs.  My desire for the Heat to lose just increased the intensity of my desire for the Mavs to win. 

This Finals, the Dallas fans were not alone in cheering for their team.  Those that rooted for the Mavs to win (or more so for the Heat to lose) was a coalition of, in addition of Mav fans, Laker fans like me (who didn’t want to see their Heat rivals to win a championship), Bulls fans, Celtic fans, Miami Heat-haters, LeBron-haters, Bosh-haters, Wade-haters (if there are such.  But this was the season we saw some of LeBron’s doucheness rubbed off on Wade, so there are probably Wade-haters now), the Federal Republic of Germany, gamblers who bet for Dallas, and – probably most important of all – the Cleveland Cavalier fans and the residents of Cleveland and Ohio.

It’s natural for good teams to be hated by others.  When a good team gets success, it would have defeated other teams to get there, breaking hearts of the fans of those teams in the process, thus, it will be hated by those teams’ fans.  Especially if that team wins over and over again throughout the years (e.g. the Los Angeles Lakers).  There will be plenty of raging, jealous hearts emerging as time passes.  Heat is a good team, it can’t be denied.  They have two of the top 5 players in the NBA, and their third option is in the top 15 or 20.  They have an awesome defense (I was really impressed by their team defense and Wade and LeBron’s individual defensive performances).  On paper, indeed, winning a championship seems easy with their talent.    But the hate for the Heat is different.  The hate for the Heat is not because of any jealous animosity for being a greatly talented team and how successful they become.  Prior the 2010-11 Season, before any success can be earned, the Miami Heat had already become the most hated team in the NBA (and probably in all of sports).  And the hate for them grew as the season progressed.  Why are they hated like this?  They are hated because it is only a natural response for an audience to hate the villains of a drama.  And that is what is happening here.  They have made it clear that they are the villains.  Consider these things: their coming together seemed to be something deviously contrived, and it didn’t help that Pat Riley, the orchestrator of this, looks and acts like Gordon Gecko;  LeBron James’ “The Decision” circus; the extravagant celebration party they threw before the season started as if they had already won the championship; the infamous and arrogant “Not 1… Not 2… Not 3… Not 4… Not 5… Not 6… Not 7…” proclamation of how many titles they will win; the sudden emergence of more Miami Heat fans (which spells B-A-N-D-W-A-G-O-N-E-R-S); the ridiculous “Fan-Up” campaign (you have 3 superstars and, still, it’s hard to fill up your arena?!  This just proves that Miami is the worst NBA team fanbase there is); crying like immature babies when they started losing during the regular season; they made ESPN their worshippers and media puppets, i.e. the Heat Index (to be fair, this is ESPN’s fault as well); their continuous display of arrogant and narcissistic behavior throughout the season and playoffs during games and interviews… plenty of reasons to hate the Heat. 

If the Heat had won, ridiculous revisionist history will be written, the arrogance and narcissism of this team will be fed instead of punished, the bandwagoners would be unjustly rewarded, and the Heat nation will have the last laugh – and an evil one that is.  Thus, the Mavs prevented all of this.  Like an epic “good vs. evil” story, the heroes won, proving that good will always triumph over evil.

And for that, along with my congratulations, I also give my heartfelt thanks to the Dallas Mavericks.  Thank you very much.  Bask in the glory and joy of this championship.  And take good care of the Larry O’Brien trophy.  The Los Angeles Lakers would be taking it back next season.   

Math is Badass

In fiction, the use of Math is heavily romanticized.  Like in the TV show “Numb3rs”, where Math is used to aid the FBI against crime.  Then again, I have read that such practices are actually being done in real life!  Also, in Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” books, there is a science called Psychohistory (which I had already discussed in a list of thought provokers), in which actual sociological and historical factors are converted to statistical-probability equations that would make it possible for the prediction of the future of humanity.  Sounds absurd?  But consider that others are actually venturing on mathematical study that are somewhat parallel to some Psychohistorical concepts!

Clearly, Math is badass.  And, believe me, not only in fiction, but in real life as well.

When I was a kid, I hated Math.  And I grew up hating it all throughout my academic life.  (Though, ironically, I was “Best in Math” in Nursery. LOL) However, I have loved mysteries and puzzles and logic (long before I learned that that’s the word for that process or exercise), but have not realized that Math was the most perfect avenue where I can work them out.  When I was about a young adult, I started to see how special Math real is.  And I felt regret, since I haven’t started loving it when I was a kid, when it’s the best time to learn its skills.

I know no real Math.  Yeah, I know basic algebra and such.  I mean the REAL Math.  The mind-blowing Math.  The Math that appears to be the key to the mysteries of the universe.  Math, as much as Science, is not a panacea, nor it can answer everything.  But, still, it is a very invaluable tool in expressing or interpreting seemingly incomprehensible facts of reality into some form of comprehension.  The Mathematical World is magical.  I find it amazing how numbers and equations can interpret reality, even across its visible boundaries; and how numbers and equations can prove a fact before an actual hands-on scientific experimentation, when experimenting about it is still impossible or it hasn’t been figured out how to carry out the experiment.  There are concepts of Quantum Physics (and also in other sciences, but mostly this) that only Math can touch.  Sci-fi concepts like time-travel and alternate universes are not laughable ideas at all because of Math.  Besides, Math can and have proven things that were thought unthinkable before, like for example, establishing that, at the essence, matter and energy are the same thing.

    

But there are also cases when something that is impossible in the world of reality is only possible in the world of math.  Examples are mindblowing paradoxes (e.g. Zeno’s paradox or the “Achilles and the Tortoise” paradox).  They are sound in paper and equations, but in reality, they are impossible.  Below is an example of a geometrical paradox.

Also consider how Math, without any logical or mathematical fallacy, proved that 1 and 0.9999… are equal.

assume that 

x = 0.999999...

multiply both sides by 10 

10x = 9.99999...

subtract both sides by x (which is 0.9999999...) 

10x - x = 9.999999... - x

or

10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...

which becomes,
9x = 9

divide both sides by 9 

9x/9 = 9/9

which results to,
x=1

conclusion 

1 = 0.999999...

And as we continue to learn more about the world of Math, we see how really mindblowing it is.

Of course, there will be times when it’s impossible for numbers and equation to tell the whole story in a particular case or system (e.g. basketball statistics), since there are some other aspects or factors of the system that can’t be put into equation. However, there might come a day when someone will build a perfect equation that would be able to successfully translate ALL the factors and aspects of a case or study, allowing it to become the perfect and final word on the subject. As I’ve said, Math has already proven some things to be possible which had been thought impossible before. Who knows, maybe in a century or two, people would be doing real-life Psychohistorical analyses.

Floodgates (at Bicol Celebration of Hope)

Will Graham, grandson of famous evangelist Billy Graham, went to Pili, Camarines Sur for a massive 4-day evangelistic crusade entitled "Bicol Celebration of Hope", where thousands of people - from different churches across Bicol - participated.  It was held at Pili's Freedom Stadium (inside the Sports Complex) from April 28 to May 1, 2011.  Aside from local performers from Bicol churches (which went through auditions in their hometowns), there were also Christian celebrity guests (during the day we performed, it was Barbie Almalbis and Donita Rose) that performed and gave testimonies.  Our band, Floodgates, was asked to open Day 2 (April 29).  We just recently got the official video (personal video recording was prohibited during the event) from the organizers, and here it is:    

click here for more videos

Analysis of Christianity Part 3 - "Basics"

(Previous: Part 2 - “Believing in God is Only Logical”)

Due to the inevitability of religion being imperfect, Christianity functioning as a religion is not perfect.  There is no perfect Christian church.  And due to this imperfectness, Christians have different ideas on Christianity and are not able to agree with each other on ALL the doctrines and concepts.  That’s why there are divisions.  That’s why there are plenty of Christian denominations and churches.

But, still, even if there are disagreements, ALL Christian churches share the belief on a set of important doctrines or concepts of Christianity.  These important beliefs are the core of Christianity, that if a church does not agree in just one of these, then it is very probable that that church is not really a Christian church even if they claim that they are. 

 

What are these basic beliefs that all Christians agree to?  I will use the Apostles’ Creed as a guide to discuss these basic beliefs, since they are already organized and summarized in it.

First, a brief background on the Creed…

The Apostles’ Creed – contrary to the name might imply – was not written by the Apostles or any Apostle.  It is known as such because the clauses are in accordance with the teachings of the Apostles.  The origin of the Creed is not easily determined.  But it is the common creed by the early Christian Church (circa 2^nd century A.D.).  It had been used during those days for catechisms, as a comprehensive set of reminders, for instructions, for reference, and a material to use when defending the faith against heresy and attacks.  Since then, the Apostles’ Creed’s contents were the common denominator of all Christians’ beliefs.

* * *

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth

Christians believe in the existence of God.  Not only does the belief in God is established, but three other things about this God are established as truths to be believed: a) the Father person of the Godhead or Trinity; b) He is Almighty – sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; and c) God is the Creator of Creation. In Part 2, I had already discussed extensively about the existence of God and that He had created all things so I don’t need to say much about this.    

And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  He is the Son (or Word) person of the Godhead or Trinity.  And that He is the Head of the Church (…our Lord).  There are those that say that Jesus was just a mere man, a prophet, a good rabbi, denying that he is God.  This claim is unbiblical, and once an organized religion or church say that Jesus is just a man, then it is a clear indication that such church is not a Christian one.

Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.  He is God incarnated as man.  100% God and 100% human simultaneously (a mystery).  As stated in the gospels, Mary did not have any sexual intercourse with anybody when she got pregnant with Jesus.  It was the Holy Spirit that put him in her womb.     

Why did God need to be incarnated as Man in the first place?  He needed to be able to become a Second Adam, a qualified representative of mankind, just as Adam was the representative in mankind’s behalf in Eden.  Mankind can only be represented by a Man.  As Adam brought curse to mankind, Christ, as the Second Adam, meant to bring hope and salvation.

Suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried

To wash the sins of mankind (or, rather, specifically speaking, His sheep), Jesus took it into himself to be humiliated, tortured, beaten, spat, ridiculed, slandered, abused, and to be crucified and killed on the cross.  He endured the hell of a suffering (pun intended) that was meant for mankind as punishment for sin.  He became clothed with mankind’s sin.  And he took the curse upon him (“Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” as the Scripture declared).  And he died.

He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead

Jesus descending to hell is just a matter of poetical semantics.  The English word Hell was taken from the Greek word Hades (since the New Testament was written in Greek).  Hades might mean Hell, the place for eternal torment, but it can also mean Death or the realm of the disembodied spirits (hell, but the letter “h” in lower case).  Death happens when the spirit is separated from its vessel in the flesh, and when Jesus died, his spirit had really left his body (“You’re your hands I commit my spirit”).   Thus, “descending to hell” merely means that Jesus’ spirit left his body and passed into the abodes of the spirit.  This merely emphasizes that Jesus’ death was as human as it can possibly be; that there was a real death that happened.  This is in context with the second part of the clause.

The second part states, “the third day He rose again from the dead.”  So, Jesus was under the power of death until the third day.  The empathic reality of his death magnifies the empathic reality of his resurrection.  Indeed, Christ’s resurrection is very very important.  His death would have been meaningless if He hadn’t risen from the dead.  Christianity would have, in the Apostle Paul’s words, in vain.  The resurrection was an essential part of the completion of Christ’s mission in saving us from our sins.  When he rose again, he had gotten victory over death and his claims of being the Son of God and of being the Messiah are affirmed. 

He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty

Forty days after his resurrection, in plain view of his followers, he ascended to Heaven.  Christ’s Ascension completed the Resurrection.  Now, He is glorified and honored by the Father.  In Men’s custom, being in the right side is the place of glory, honor, and power; therefore to sit on God’s right is the place of highest glory, honor, and power, which Christ now enjoys as a reward for his accomplished mission.  And now sitting on the right side of the Father, the Son is now in the perfect position to have His Father’s ear all the time, to mediate and plead for His sheep since he is our High Priest.

From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead

Christians believe in a “D-Day”.  Which is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  There is no exact date stated in the Scriptures on when will it be (“Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not angels of heaven, but my Father only.”).  But Christians are instructed to live each day as if it was the last since Christ will come unexpectedly (“like a thief in the night”).  During his first coming, he came humbly, born in a smelly manger.  But in this Second Coming, he will come in all glory and power.  He will come as a Conqueror, with the Mighty Armies of Heaven with him and his saints (the Christians) by his side.  He will also come as a Judge of mankind.  All humans throughout history shall stand before the Judgment seat, where the righteous – those that are made righteous by Christ’s blood – and the wicked will be separated.  The righteous will come into the glorious joy of the Master, while the wicked – along with Satan and his angels – will be dismissed to eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire (Brrr. Always gives me goosebumps when thinking or talking about this).

I believe in the Holy Ghost

Christians believe in the Holy Ghost person in the Godhead or Trinity.  Some claim that the Holy Ghost is a mere “energy” or “force” and not God.  This is, of course, false and unbiblical.  The Holy Ghost is God.  He was the promised “Comforter” by the Son, the One that will replace Him as the day-to-day Companion of his disciples, before he ascended to heaven.  Christians also believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in every Christian’s heart and works on him and through him.

The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of saints

Firstly, the label of “holy” on the Church means, not because its members are now without flaws, but it is holy because its Head – Jesus Christ – is holy and he had made his Church holy.  And someday, the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying process would completely make all of the Church’s members perfect. 

The Christian Church is expressed as “The Holy Catholic Church”.  This was not intended to mean as the Roman Catholic Church at all.  The word “Catholic” means universal.  The Christian church is universal, meaning it is not exclusive to any race or culture, which would require submission to an earthly citizenship or cultural traditions as a condition to join, but it is open to every tongue and nation. 

Just as the Church being “Catholic” means that it is universal, not dependent on race or culture, it is also universal in the sense that it is not exclusive on any denomination.  The Church does not mean as something limited to organization.  Indeed, there are plenty of Christian denominations.  But the Church means the Christians as a whole.  And though Christians are divided by denominations and by their personal opinions and interpretations of biblical doctrine, they are one as a Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ being the Head.  Christians are one in Christ. 

The word “saint” means someone set apart, and thus, all Christians, who are set apart for Christ, are saints.  And “the Communion of the saints”, means the united, harmonious and sacred fellowship of Christians, regardless of their differences and lack of agreement on all doctrines.  All Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ and fellowship among them is very imperative.     

Now, considering all the things mentioned above, it also means that a membership to a church does not make you a Christian or grant you salvation.  Only with a personal encounter with Christ will one have salvation and be a truly sincere Christian.  Thus, any church or religious group that claims that they are the only “true” church and only those that are members of their church will be saved is a sure giveaway that they are not a true Christian church.

The Forgiveness of sins

After the Fall of Man in Eden, mankind was under the bondage of sin.  And the consequence of sin on mankind is being separated from God, because being holy, He hates evil and can never associate with it.  Because of sin, there is death (“the wages of sin is death”).  We might be breathing and walking physically, but in the eyes of God, since we humans are destined for death (and Hell), we are dead already.  We are spiritual zombies.          

But because of God’s grace and intervention, He had sent His son to save us from our sins (already discussed above).  And, by this, Christians believe that Christ is their Savior, by his blood they are cleansed from sin and clothed with his righteousness, making it possible for them to be reconciled and have a personal relationship with God.  Moreover, this allowed those that are forgiven to be free from being slaves of sin, allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell in them, making them holy, and enabling them to live lives that are pleasing to God.     

The Resurrection of the body

As already mentioned before, all of humanity throughout history will stand before Jesus Christ when he returns to be judged.  Thus, there will be a resurrection of all dead – righteous and wicked – in general.  The resurrection will not only be limited to our souls, but our bodies as well.  We will rise with the same bodies that our souls had left when we die.  We can never tell how can this be brought about, but in God, all things are possible.  There will be two types of resurrection: for the wicked and the righteous.  The resurrection for the wicked will be of shame and eternal revulsion.  Their bodies and souls shall be thrown to the Lake of Fire, but though their bodies will be annihilated by the fire, their souls or consciousness will remain, and they will suffer the burning for all eternity.  On the other hand, the righteous, though their resurrected bodies will be the same as that in which the soul have dwelt in, will undergo transformation into glorious and beautiful spiritual bodies.  Christians believe that Jesus is not only the redeemer of the soul but is also “the Savior of the body.”  Thus, there will renewal of the body (after its resurrection) as well as the spirit of someone that is of Christ.  And, blameless before God, they will be received by Him to enjoy eternity in His presence.            

And the Life Everlasting

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Thus, all deserve to die.  But because of Christ, instead of death, Christians received the gift of immortality instead. 

God gifted life to man for one purpose: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.  But after the Fall, in which the curse of death replaced the gift of life because of sin’s entrance, man lost this purpose.  However, God sent His Son, that through Him, by grace, we would receive Eternal Life, destroying the hold of the curse of death, and we would find our purpose once more.  Eternal Life is the great gift in which will enable us to perform the purpose why God had created us: to glorify God and enjoy Him FOREVER.  Though Eternal Life will climax once eternity begins, the gift of Eternal Life, however, starts as soon as one receives Christ in his life, and not only after the resurrection.  Thus, performing our purpose can start as soon as on that point, which will carry on in eternity.  Eternal Life is having the privilege of being able to enjoy the happiness of Heaven, as this immortality will be spent in basking in the overwhelming glory and splendor of God forevermore.      

* * *

Take note of the fact that there are churches that claim to be Christian churches but are NOT, and there are those who belong in Christian churches but are NOT Christians.  That’s why knowledge of these basic and universal beliefs that are shared across Christianity is useful since it’s an effective determinant if one is a true Christian.  A true Christian believes all of these truths.  Though believing in all of these is not a “requirement” to get saved or be born again, belief in them, however, is a “proof” that one is saved or born again.  

As mentioned several times already, Christians however do not share an agreement on other doctrines.  These debated doctrines are “irrelevant”, in the sense that they will never put a Christian’s authenticity as a Christian on doubt, considering he believes in the core beliefs.  These separations and disagreements happen because of good ol’ flawed human nature.  Humans are stubborn, proud, tend to rely on personal wisdom and ability, and give importance to personal conveniences.    

Of course, Christians function with a desire to glorify God and as lovers of truth.  So if a Christian does err in some of his doctrinal beliefs, then it is not because he is malicious and intentionally motivates himself to cause confusion or separation, but it is because he sincerely believes that his erroneous doctrinal beliefs are the “truth” and they “glorify God”.  And stubborn as he might be in holding on his doctrinal beliefs, if discussion or study will show him that he was wrong with his doctrinal opinions – the Holy Spirit opening his eyes – then he will acknowledge his wrong understanding and would now believe in the true doctrine.  Because, again, Christians desire to glorify God and find the truth.

(I think the most popular or “hottest” of doctrinal debates is the “mechanics” of salvation between the Reformed view against the Arminian view.  Personally, I believe that the Reformed view is the correct biblical view.  That’s why it’s what I will discuss next: Part 4 - “Salvation and TULIP”)