Joke Time!!!

More text jokes that I have to delete from my cellphone inbox but I choose to remember here. Note: Text words are converted to their proper spelling.

----------------------------------------------------------
From Joval
----------------------------------------------------------
You're the perfect person that I know.

So sweet, so nice, so kind

Always on my mind

And very special for me

But there's something wrong...


Wrong send ako! hehehe :)
----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From Grace
----------------------------------------------------------
MRS: Musta po asawa ko?

DOC: Sorry ma'am! Mula ngayon, ikaw na magpapakain
& magpapaligo sa kanya kasi putol na kamay at paa
niya!

MRS: Di nga?

DOC: Hehe, joke lang! Patay na siya! :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Heto ako iniisip ka.
Nakatunganga, nakahilata,
Mag-isa,
Nananalangin,
Humihingi ng himala
Na sana nandito ka..

Dami ng hugasin!
Tambak labahan!
Gulo ng house!

YAYA! I miss you na..:)

----------------------------------------------------------
Kung nag Gay Language sana sila GMA at Garci, eh di
walang scam!

GMA: Hallow Gracia!

Garci: Plangush mother! Na chenilyn de kimberlyn ko na
po yong mga chuva ek ek!

GMA: Bonggacious! Eh yung mga chenes chenes, carry na ba?

Garci: Winnie santos mama, wiz na worry eclavou na ever!
Na chorva na!

GMA: Ang tarush! Malditah ka talaga. Eh di windra na
naman watashi!?

Garci: Anufi Ate...

GMA: Oshah babush na... Rarampa pa ang lola! :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Isang lasing may nakitang madre..
Biglang sinuntok, tinadyakan at binalibag!

Bugbog-sarado ang madre..

Tapos tumawa yung lasing at sinabi..

"Wala ka palang binatbat,
BATMAN!!"

----------------------------------------------------------
Man and wife were out on an African safari when suddenly
a lion sprang out of nowhere and dragged the wife with its
jaws.

WIFE: Shoot! Shoot!

HUSBAND: I can't! Wala na akong FILM!

----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From Kat
----------------------------------------------------------
"Danbe fuld badaraks datay gat..
Emstel, emstel, jinepram dablak..."

Ulit-ulitin mo lang.. Magegets mo din yan.

----------------------------------------------------------
One day, a sadist, a masochist, a murderer, a necrophile,
a zoophile and a pyromaniac were talking in a psycho ward.

SADIST: I'm bored, why don't we torture a cat?

ZOOPHILE: Yeah, We'll torture it and then f**k it!

MURDERER: We'll torture it, f**k it and then kill it!

NECROPHILE: We'll torture it, f**k it, kill it and f**k it again!

PYROMANIAC: Yeah, then we'll burn the cat!

(sudden silence)

Then everybody asked the masochist,
"Hey, why didn't you say anything?"

MASOCHIST: Meow! (",)

----------------------------------------------------------
Erap in school...

Teacher: Who knows what minimize is?

Erap: I do ma'am!

Teacher: OK, use it in a sentence.

Erap: Minimize is the girlfriend of Mickeymize.

----------------------------------------------------------
(Accordingly) a poem nominated for the best poem of '05,
written by an African kid.

When I born, I black.
When I grow up, I black.
When I go in the sun, I black.
When I scared, I black.
When I sick, I black.
And when I die, I still black.

And you White fellas,
When you born, you PINK.
When you grow up, you WHITE.
When you go in the sun, you RED.
When you cold, you BLUE.
When you scared, you YELLOW.
When you sick, you GREEN.
And when you die, you GRAY..

And you calling me COLORED?

- the kid has a point!

----------------------------------------------------------

Entertaining God

submitted on 09/25/06 as reflection paper for the religious-philosophical movie Dogma
**********************************************************

“There’s a million questions I wish I could ask, most all questioning what I'm sure is your great plan, and that would be really arrogant of me, I know. But there is one I'd like to ask, and I'm sure you get it all the time. But how many opportunities like this will I get?” Bethany inhaled deeply and then exhaled, preparing to hear the ultimate answer from someone infallible. “Why are we here?” The childlike woman stared at her for a while. Then she leaned forward and poked Bethany’s nose. The woman, who happened to be the latest embodiment of God, smiled at her and walked away. “Didn’t I tell you She was funny?” Metatron, a Seraph and the Voice of God, told Bethany matter-of-factly.

That was an excerpt from the ending scene of the film Dogma. I thought the scene was just amusing, and a little confusing, while I was watching it for the first time. However, it struck me just when I realized what it really meant during a class discussion. Although the film does not explicitly state it, it seems to imply that God created all of existence because of His sense of humor.

Dogma does not just exemplify God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but also His unlikely but very probable purpose of human existence. God is omnipotent that He can transform into one of us here on Earth. The problem is that He has to lose His omnipotence and omniscience to be human. Being human means being mortal, vulnerable to physical pain and death. His embodiment’s death can release Him from mortality to His original and true state. However, He may be trapped in His temporary body during a comatose, as exemplified in the movie. In this case, as human, He would be influenced by time. That then would give anyone the chance to prove the infallible God wrong, thereby reversing Him and all dependent existence to nothingness. But after some reflection, I learned that it may never happen. Remember that God is all-knowing. Although He lost His omniscience as a human, He still had it before He became one. Before turning human and thus losing His omniscience and omnipotence, He must have used it to ‘see’ if everything would be fine while he would be embodied. In Dogma for example, before becoming the human ‘John Doe,’ God knew that He, as human, would be beaten up and fall into comatose. But He also knew that He would eventually be saved by Bethany, the Last Scion. Thus, knowing this, He confidently allowed Himself to be human.

Now the bottom line question is: why did He have to create us? Wouldn’t it be the same if God decided to exist without us? God does not need the free man for truly responding love or for entertainment simply because He is perfect. He can never feel unloved or bored. He does not need anything else to sustain Him. So why do we need to exist? Perhaps there’s something wrong with the question. Maybe God did not need to create us – He wanted to create us.

God knows He does not need to create anything. If he was only serious, He should have not created us, thinking that, “I don’t need them anyway. It would be useless.” But He cannot be limited to being serious and boring. Since He is perfect, He must also have a sense of humor. And perhaps, as a result of being funny and playful, He created us – as His toys. As a perfect being, God cannot be entertained because he cannot be bored in the first place. Then He must have decided to be man so that He may experience human boredom and thus be truly amused when He frolics down here on Earth. It’s just like God built a small Legoland and shrunk Himself in it so He can enjoy playing with it more.

“Why are we here?” Perhaps we are here to entertain God, not because he needs amusement but he wants it. And since He is omnipotent, He gets what He wants. Now wouldn’t it affect my faith knowing that I exist as one of God’s playthings? Probably not. If we are God’s playthings, God would be like a child who would love and protect his toys. Thus, we are safe as God’s toys. If it did affect my faith, it added more amazement rather than fear in the funny God.

I must sharpen my sense of humor some more. I’d like to really amuse God in case I meet His embodiment one day. And I’d let Him poke my nose as many times as He would like.

In Defense of the Divine Architecture

submitted 09/25/06 as Reaction Paper for Philo 104: Philosophy of Religion
************************************************

The teleological argument, as Ernest Nagel wrote in The Case for Atheism, “is based on what purports to be empirical evidence,” which makes it different in character from the cosmological and ontological arguments. From the intricate natural systems we see around us and even ­in us, the argument from design claims that the complex existence must’ve been created by a divine architect, not by random chance. The argument is popularly compared with the case of a found watch, whose finder assumes that the watch with its elaborate mechanism was made by someone intelligent and much less likely by arbitrariness.

Ernest Nagel criticized the teleological argument with two counterarguments. The first one asserts that the idea ‘watch is to watchmaker; world is to world maker’ is a faulty analogy. Accordingly, the watch is not similar to the “innumerable animate and inanimate systems with which we are familiar.” Furthermore, the way the parents ‘make’ their offspring is not the same with how the watchmaker makes a watch. The author’s second counterargument claims to altogether crush the teleological argument because the rival hypothesis, the Darwinian Theory, is a “better supported assumption.” It “explains the diversity of biological species in terms of chance variations in the structure of organisms, and of a mechanism of selection which retains those variant forms that possess some advantages for survival.”

As a ‘follower’ of the teleological argument, I am relieved that I still haven’t encountered a very good and striking criticism to it even after reading Nagel’s article. It is now my turn to lay down my counterarguments for each of his counterarguments.

First, the watch and watchmaker may not be exactly the same with the world and world maker. However, they are proportionally similar. Yes, the overwhelmingly intricate universe is very much greater than even all the watches there are. It is because the world maker or intelligent designer is also very much greater than any watchmaker. This world maker must even be the greatest since He made the universe. It even supports the nature of the Creator. Although we can comprehend certain mechanisms of existence, such as our bodily functions, we cannot grasp the universe as a whole. It is unfathomable and mysterious, and so is its architect and maker. On the issue on the dissimilarity between parents making babies and watchmakers making watches, I don’t even know why mating came up in his arguments. The teleological argument compares the watchmaker with the world maker, not a baby maker. Moreover, in that analogy, the method of creation is not the concern; it is the purpose or cause of the creation. It suggests that the watch’s existence is only possible with a purposing will, and so is the universe’s existence. How it is created is not that essential.

Second, the Theory of Evolution only explains the existence of animate systems. How about the inanimate systems? How is the system of seasons or the organized planetary movements possible? Did they also adapt to the “mechanisms of selection?” No, because only living creatures can adapt. Besides, these inanimate systems are the mechanisms of selection. The system of seasons, for instance, forces the bears to hibernate during winter and the ants to gather and store as much food as they can during summer. Those that cannot cope would have to perish. It seems that nature has its laws. But since nature is inanimate, it cannot decree on its own. Only something similar to a purposing mind can explain the inanimate structures in existence. The Darwinian Theory is still plausible. But it must be integrated with the teleological argument to support it thoroughly. Perhaps the one who not only created but also governs the universe ‘designed’ the inanimate systems from where the animate systems were adapted and formed. And since Darwin cannot determine the source of all evolving organisms, the teleological argument patches the leak by offering the idea that only a divine architect and creator can create the very first organism from where all evolution sprang from.