In light of some villainous entities’ audacity to ironically claim how they’re guided by the Holy Spirit in going about their duties to be as divine as spiritually shepherded. Is it some calculating persuasion to cunningly convince people to rather believe them? “Hmm, bato bato sa langit, ang tamaan, ‘wag magalit…” The Holy Trinity be like ~ Wide-eyed, apparently taken aback while looking at each other, “Whowhat, did you? Huh, it wasn’t me…” Seriously though, what if God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit decided to join in…

Have you ever thought of what God might say on current issues if He is breathing the same air as we are physically? What if He is actually here but we’re too preoccupied with our own beliefs and opinions? We are as guilty in allowing what God is most likely against considering how we prefer silence. He could be disguised as someone saying all the right things but our pride and passiveness is what’s contradicting it. Did you ever think how God might have allowed the presence as well of disruptors to establish balance for learning and realizations? Did it ever cross your mind to likewise cross-analyze things if only to cross-encounter the truth considering how people now are one-sided as much as close-minded? And they rather look the other way… What could probably be God’s take on issues of corruption, political turmoil, in aid of “selective and divisive” legislation, traffic, floodings, misgendering and neopronouns, discrimination/racism, bashing, what-have-yous and whatnots? What’s His take on these given the probable misalignment of other church leaders’ respective interpretation and standpoint as much as the differing understanding of it by people? How will God differentiate the picking of His chosen one with that of other churches’ endorsement of political candidates? What does God think of the appeasement of people’s worldly desires through man-enacted measures (i.e., laws, bills, ordinances, etc.), while favorable for votes and concealed arrangements and ulterior motives but inconsistent with moral principles? How does He feel about humans favoring their constitutional rights over devotional purpose? What if God Himself were to let us choose between a readily available billions-worth of confidential funds (not a soul will know) for our taking or an impoverished yet meaningful life prone to judgemental eyes, how do you think human nature will play out into our consciousness? Have you thought of God’s possible opinion on the discrepancies of humankind’s constitutional laws versus that of His divine rules?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, HE WILL GUIDE you INTO ALL THE TRUTH. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ~ John 16: 13

If you happen to be one with a faithful commitment to your religious belief and likewise with loyal allegiance to your political disposition, do you even question your likely conflicting affirmation and values? Whether you’re a DDS, a loyalist, a dilawan or a kakampink, there’s no absolution from being sort of an omnist, “straddled on the fence”, having divided loyalties. You simply cannot idolize two figures at odds with their convictions and reckonings. May lightning strike the guilty ones. This rings true in government, playing the field for political expediency. They claim to be for the people to gain their trust and votes but it’s the same people they take advantage of, particularly their gullibility. True enough when making a stand or choosing sides, it’s based on what would be more popular, not necessarily righteous. Exploitation. Manipulation. Betrayal. You cannot honor God while at the same time venerate a sinner. This is where, in most likely cases, there’s conflict in the laws of man as opposed to that of God’s Ten Commandments and beyond. There’s that possibility, when confusion hits us as to its intermediary rationalizations, that in order to mull over what’s morally justified, let’s ask ourselves “what does the law of God tell us?” Then of course, there’s the “we’re but humans” excuse to rather pay heed more on what suits our earthly fundamentals. We’re humanly selfish that way. As much as “God isn’t here with us anyway” for an excuse which gets taken for granted. More so, we justify our questionable choices and decisions claiming it to be the better option as dictated by our law-abiding conscience and liberal obligation to mankind, notwithstanding the transgression against morality.

Moral ascendancy as opposed to corporeal well-being… Take for example the death penalty concept, we only pay attention to the gravity of the crime against the perpetrator but not the concept of forgiveness. And we see it from a vindictive perception and not from an ethical perspective. We regard it based on how we egocentrically benefit from it as much as console our self-importance and not for the greater good. Nevertheless, if you’re really enraged and unforgiving against that person, thus the warrant for his death, you’re actually doing him a favor by allowing him to know the end of his timeline for the chance for a divine absolution of his wrongdoings. Whereas, you walk off with tick marks on your naughty list as a vengeful being. And take note, this is even more subdued compared to extrajudicial killings, taking into account how “Tokhang’s” death sentence was rather taking matters into their own hands while disregarding due process. A double violation as a matter of fact, against human rights and against the Sixth Commandment. The saddest part here though is that diehard supporters and blind loyalists refuse to accept this valuation out of their indiscriminate fidelity to the enablers and initiators behind this corruption and wickedness. Not even a bit of remorse for the innocent victims as some collateral damage for what they regard as consequentialism wherein the end justifies the means. To add insult to injury, they gloat about its success as the foremost basis of justice albeit “unblind” as well as selective. It’s not for anything else but to further adulate their “hero” as much as to rationalize their partiality.

While quite a number of these overly opinionated advocates drum up their contention with every possible self-serving noise. It reverberates louder and farther as amplified by others’ deafening silence. For those others who aren’t silent however, they’re apparently muffled by the louder noise. Their mutter doesn’t seem to matter. Their undertones, deemed “under” as literal as it is, are downplayed. And misunderstood as understood, we can’t expect the blind to see clearly. We see however is their haughty conviction that their reasoning and argument are of higher-level which only them are convinced. Unfortunately, there are more who are interested in spreading and believing in/listening to controversial hearsays than taking a look or even glancing at an on-point yet “outnumbered” sense of outrage. Along that premise, morality is lost. Be that as it may, it’s likely justified by a temporal rule of law that’s misconstrued. Most probably, “con’s true”, that’s the truth, their truth. Their ill-advised/mind-conditioned moral truth. Under conflicting principles, who’s right, what’s true, what’s rightfully true? Being on moral high ground however, both sides have a responsibility. The sensible party is to be understanding and forgiving still. Difficult but ethical. Whereas for the case of the “unconstitutional ruling” by the Supreme Court for instance as to its “truth”, it’s ironic how it carries that “domineering supremacy” on court of law rulings but is nonetheless questioned by “associates” within their own “field of expertise”. That “truth” is now being debated on by two sides of which both are presenting valid contentions with legal-basis, constitutional, political or otherwise. It’s law vs law within the same law institution. A free-for-all beyond oral argument and more than their 2-cents among and between varied branches of law, i.e., lawyers, law makers, legislators, arbitrators, justices, et al. And politicians are riding on it… They’re claiming concern over a possible constitutional crisis. Isn’t there one already? Crisis? What about ‘Christ is’? He is not a “lawyer” but Christ is the solution and true absolution.

Truth is, one doesn’t have to be a lawyer or a law expert to see that common sense and sensibility have been “held for contempt”. Wisdom has been “unconstitutionally sentenced beyond reclusion perpetua”. Lies seemingly have a gag order while honesty has a restraining order… Whereas, madness has been released and set free. Truth is, there are in-need-of-fixing rapture-causing loop holes and seeping through is a not-supreme believability. Manifesting “truth” to cover up for a lie is a bigger deception; not supreme at all. Hard truth. And for whose truth are they more concerned about? For whose truth are they looking after? What’s their agenda? Who’s more credible? Who’s more right? Who’s truer, truer than the truth? Confusing as it may, considering there’s the law of man and there’s the law of God, there’s only one truth. God is. The Truth is God. God is The Truth. We don’t need to go back in time like we are to present evidence how Pontius Pilate under duress from the Pharisees and the clamor of the majority was relied on to decide on such an “unconstitutional ruling”. It’s no different from the senate’s 19-5 votes… Who is for the Supreme Court? Who is on The Supreme God’s side? Who is “possessed” by some supreme spirit? Who is truly guided by The Holy Spirit? Amidst all of these constitutional matters in question, God is with us. However, we overlook His presence. And among the honorables we address as their honor to whom we depend on these rule of law concerns, we forget who is The Most Honorable. The true Supreme Justice. Striking His Gavel, we’re not worthy. God, have mercy on us. God save us, Your Honor.