Mabuti naman at may isang pare na iskolar sa paga-aral ng Bibliya na nagsabi na sa halip na nakakasira ng panampalataya sa Panginoong Hesukristo, ang The Da Vinci Code, ay lalong nagpapatibay ng ating relasyon sa Simbahang Katoliko..
Sinabi ni Fr. Regino Cortes, ang nag-iisang Pilipino na miyembro ng Pontifical Biblical Commission ng Vatican, na ang kontrobersiya tungkol sa Da Vinci Code ay magpapatibay sa Roman Catholic Church.
Si Cortes ang may akda ng librong, “The Da Vinci Code:an Exegetical Review” at inisa-isa niya ang mga mali o kaya malayo sa katotohanan na mga pangyayari sa best-selling na libro ni Dan Brown.
Ang “The Da Vinci Code” ay tungkol sa mga talinghaga o simbolo na iniwan ng isang pinatay na experto sa simbolo na gamit ang likha ni Leonardo Da Vinci, ang kilalang pintor. Si Da Vinci ang gumawa ng “Mona Lisa” na na sa Louvre museum sa Paris.
Ang tumbok na istorya ng “The Da Vinci Code” ay si Hesukristo at si Mary Magdalene ay nag-asawa at may anak. Sinabi pa doon na kung titingnan raw ang “The Last Supper” na painting ni Da Vinci, ang nasa kanyang kanan ay hindi ang disipulong si John kungdi si Mary Magdalene.
Kung titingnan mo nga ng mabuti, maaring babae ang nasa kanan ni Hesus. Kaya lang ganoon rin ang pangatlong disipulo sa kaliwa niya. Ang paliwanag ng mga Bible experts ay noong unang panahon, ma-aaring magmukhang feminine ang ilang disupulo kasi mahaba ang kanilang buhok at ang style ng damit nila noon ay maaring maging unisex.
Kung totoo kasi na nag-asawa si Hesukristo at si Mary Magdalene, di mali ang turo sa atin ng simbahan.
Kung sa bagay, wala namang pagkunyari si Dan Brown na katotohanan ang kanyang sinulat. Fiction o kathang-isip naman talaga yun. Magaling lang talaga siyang sumulat. Parang totoo.
Malawak rin ang paningin ng Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. Hindi nilang sinabi na i-pagbawal ang pelikula na naka-schedule ipalabas simula Huwebes. Sinabi lang ng CBCP na kailangan pagtibayin natin ang ating panampalataya.
Hindi naman nakakapagtaka na mayroon mga OA mas katoliko pa kaysa CBCP. Gustong ipa-ban ang pelikula. Isa na rito si Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita na nagsabing “blasphemous” raw ang pelikula at hindi raw dapat ipalabas.
Gusto lang ni Ermita sumipsip sa simbahan para kalimutan na ng mga obispo ang pandaraya, pagsinungaling at pagnanakaw ni Gloria Arroyo.
Binigyan tayo ng Panginoon ng talino para umintindi. Gamitin natin yan para lumawak at tumibay ang ating panampalataya.
Totoo Ellen, mga ipokrito nag mga taong nag-nanais na i-ban ang Da Vinci Code, lalo na iyong taong nagsasabing apo siya ni Rizal. Binanggit pa niya ang mga kamag-anak niya. Pati itong si Ermita. Sus!!! Tumigil na sila dahil kahit anong gawin nilang pagpapa-pogi sa tao ay lalo lamang silang nagiging katawa-tawa. Anong illegal at immoral kung ipalabas ang nasabing pelikula. The viewing public is not stupid. Hindi komo napanood nila ay gagayahin.
Nagmamalinis sila pero tingnan mo naman kung anong ginagawa nila-sinasamba at pinoprotektahan nila ang isang sinungaling, mandaraya at magnanakaw. Iyan ang dapat i-ban. Alisin sa Malacanang dahil nakakasira siya ng image ng Pilipino. Sila ay mga protectors ng sugal, illegal contrabands, drug lords at kung anu-ano pa. Iyan ang immoral!!
Eh ano ngayon kung laman ng Da Vinci Code ay naging mag-asawa sina Jesus at Mary magdalene? Bawal ba iyon? Ang kasal ay nilikha ng Diyos. Kung hindi man iyon itinuro ng Simbahang Katolika eh ano ngayon? Remember si Magdalene ay binasbasan ni Jesus laban sa mapaghusgang mga tao noon. Ang immoral ay iyong isang tao dyan sa malacanang na may asawa at mga anak ay nakikitungo pa sa secretary at inanakan pa. Mga plastik!!!!
16 May 2006
Madam Ellen, Christianity survives a lot of persecution, especially in the year when the Roman empire was at its peak, remember the persecution to christian belief??? IF the roman emperor finds thay people beleive in christ, they will be persecuted, like being stoned by people, thrown in a den to be eaten alive by the lions, crucified like the lord jesus christ, or be thrown in a coliseum to fight another christian believer. I’ myself is a catholic, have read the book, but it doesn’t mean that it diminishes my christian belief in the holy divinity . When you read the book, there only two things that will happen:
1) One’s belief will grow strong, and
2) One will question the teachings of christianity
Remember the catholic and christian belief has met a lot of persecutions, but we are still here and growing strong. It is the duty of the church to preach us. reading and watching the “da vinci” code doesn’t mean that we should question the church’s doctrine.
jinx
kailangan nating maging handa para hindi tayo aanga anga pagdating sa katotohanan ng salita ng Dios … ang pagiging handa ay makakamit sa pamamagitan ng pagiging maalam kung ano talaga ang sinasabi ng salita ng Dios … importante rin na siguruhin natin na ang ating sinasaliksik na salita ng Dios ay talagang iyon ngang salita ng Dios dahil maraming lumalabas diyan upang idiskredito ang tunay na salita ng Dios, kamukha na nga nitong code na ito … wala namang sinabi sa salita ng Dios na ang panginoong Jesus ay nag asawa … kung nag asawa man siya, sigurado akong babanggitin iyon ng kahit isa man lang sa apat na may akda ng apat na ebanghelyo (mateo, markos, lukas at juan) o kaya si apostol pablo sa kanyang marami rami ding sulat … ang kaso, ni isa sa kanila walang nagbanggit noon, kaya ako, naniniwala ako na hindi nangyari iyon … para sa akin, galing iyon sa diablo para idiskredito ang ginawa ng panginoon Jesus para sa sangkatauhan na siya rin naman ang maylikha … para sa akin ay hindi ko papanoorin yung pelikula na iyon, kasi, kikita sila doon at pagkatapos ay gagawa na naman sila ng proyekto para tirahin ang katotohanan
Habang hindi pa naayos ang ilang teknikal flaws sa aking blog, pakiusap kong pakibigay ng ffilename sa comment para mapalitan ko isa-isa ang “anonymous” na label.
Maraming salamat.
Ellen,
Hindi pala ipanagbabawal ng CBCP ang pelikulang Da Vinci Code e bakit itong si Ermita ay sabi mo nga, OA?
Siguro may nagbigay sa kanya ng “brown envelope” para mag-ingay siya (hindi para “tumahimik” siya)…
Pero talaga, sa palagay ko ay iyong Mrs niya ang nag- influence sa kanya pagkatapos nilang makita ang pelikula – heheh! Catolico cerrado masyaso itong Mrs ni ermita – pati nga si Eduardo kailangan mgsimba maski ano ang mangyari at mag communion pa; madalas sa San Antonio church sa Forbes Park (harap ng BPI branch at Rustan’s) sila nag sisimba – minsan sabi ko sa nanay, ayan, Eto na si Eduardo hawak na naman sa tenga – heheh!
Sabi nga ng iba Takusa daw… heheh (Takut Sa Asawa)…
madam ellen bakit pinagtatalunan pa ang the vinci code?hindi kaya may itinatagong lihim ang bibliya?o sabihin na natin na hindi kumpleto ang nilalaman ng bibliya?sa panonood na pelikulang ito tao lamang ang magpapasya kung dapat ba syang maniwala sa nilalaman ng pelikulang ito.
Hi Ellen,
Thanks for dropping by!
Re your comment, “Does anybody believe Miriam. She’s an object of amusement.”
Heheh! Parang village idiot na lang siya (with apologies to a village idiot wherever he or she may be!)
Ooops, nagi anonymous ulit ako in my previous post… but I wasn’t asked to give my name a while ago; hope I won’t appear anonymous here.
All this fuss about the Da Vinci Code is nothing but a show of ignorance on the part of those who profess to be Christians but has never bothered to read the Holy Bible to know more about Christ and His Gospel, and still believe for example that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute even when the Holy Bible has never stated so, but that she was a woman exorcised of 7 evils, and the first one to see the resurrected Christ to show some special relationship between her and the Saviour; no mention of her having engaged in prostitution.
If Christ as a man had a wife, I suppose that she would be a woman of the caliber of Mary the Virgin, who must have acted more like a surrogate mother to the Only Begotten Son of a Heavenly Father, for she was in fact married to Joseph with whom she had children after giving birth to Him.
I find for example statements given for instance by Ermita who works for the No. 1 crook in Philippine politics about the Tom Hanks’ movie as typical of those hypocrites, who do not even have an idea of who they are praying to when they repeat the Lord’s Prayer, much less know His True Gospel, for I do not believe that anyone who does follow the Commandments of God will ever bear be associated with a liar and a cheat like the son of Perdition who is the father of lies and deceit.
As the Scriptures say, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5: 6-11), for “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ” (Eph. 4: 18-20).
I would like to share this review of the “Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown from a website for members of our church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to help those in the dark regarding a fiction being now peddled as truth:
What Da Vinci Didn’t Know: An LDS Perspective
by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Andrew C. Skinner April 26, 2006
——————————————————————————–
Approaching History:
The Da Vinci Code As a Case Study
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
(The Da Vinci Code, p. 1)
We live in the hectic present. Daily concerns take almost every moment of our attention, and we still have unfinished business when we finally go to sleep. Yet in those rare moments when we free ourselves of the present, we naturally, almost instinctively, worry and dream about the future, leaving little room for anything else.
Interest in the Past
Because we live in the present and dream of the future, the question naturally arises, Why should we be interested in the past, especially the distant past? The past is elusive. The records left to us are fragmentary and often contradictory. Even the most interested among us are often quite conflicted about how to interpret the past. Decades of historical inquiry have at least made two points–that the past is in some way a “foreign place” and that we will forever be attempting to fully understand it.
Additionally, we may ask ourselves, Because life is short and uncertain, thus making time a precious commodity, should we waste it in the past when there is so much in the present and the approaching future that captures our attention?
For many religiously devoted individuals, some events of the past hold obvious significance–particularly the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, even among dedicated disciples, most are interested only in the narrow focus of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Beyond that, history stimulates little interest among most people. This lack of interest probably arises because few people understand how to approach history in a way that makes it meaningful for them.
Two Important Skills
Part of the reason we struggle with the past is that parents and teachers rarely transmit two important skills of historical inquiry: (1) respectful questioning and (2) a wonder and openness about the past.
By “respectful questioning,” we mean two things. First, we should realize that we are dealing with real people from the past who were acting in real time. We must respect them as individuals. We must be more sympathetic and less judgmental than we often are when we judge historical figures from our modern perspective. Second, we cannot be gullible and thereby accept every interpretation of historical events and historical figures at face value. This outcome is often an issue with popular media portrayals of the past. For any article, book, television program, or Hollywood movie, we need to ask questions about the sources used, the intentions of the author, and the context of the production.
The second skill is having “a wonder and openness about the past.” By this, we mean we must be ready to experience the excitement and thrill of learning lessons from the past. Additionally, we must be open and flexible in dealing with new interpretations and new information. A new discovery can add depth and breadth to our understanding of the present as well as the past. Tunnel vision has no place in legitimate historical inquiry.
The harmonious marriage of these two skills within the mind of every person should be one of the primary goals of education. We recognize that, in some ways, they seem to be conflicting modes of thought, but they are imperative to effective historical inquiry. We must strike a balance. At a time when popular culture is offering us provocative portraits of important people and events–among them Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene–we face no more important history lesson than teaching these skills.
Popular History
Our current culture tends to be ahistorical–that is, not concerned with history or with historical development. For the most part, we have not been accustomed to the skills needed to carefully and thoughtfully engage the past. As professors of religious education at Brigham Young University, we often meet excited individuals who want to share with us their interpretations of the past, which are usually views that are more informed by pop perception than by careful historical inquiry. Such individuals are often widely read and know various speculative nuances of popular history. The Da Vinci Code, or some other popular interpretation of the past, has captured their attention, and they are eager to talk with a university professor about their views.
Notice the kinds of questions that have been asked us in response to “The Da Vinci Code phenomenon”:
1. Do you believe the Catholic Church is hiding documents in the Vatican?
2. Do you believe Jesus was married?
3. Do you believe the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain truths that have been revealed in the Restoration?
4. Do you believe the European royal lines descend from Jesus?
It is interesting how such questions are phrased, suggesting that the questioners are dealing with a matter of belief and not of evidence. We are almost never asked, “How good is the evidence that Jesus was married?” or “What evidence do we have that the Nag Hammadi texts taught eternal marriage?”
In responding to these kinds of questions, we often notice that the excitement fades when we raise questions about some pop historical reconstruction that has been built more on imagination than on solid historical foundations and that has not gone through the rigors of peer review and debate. Sometimes we find that we are dismissing not just some errant historical conclusion but rather a theory that has become a precious facet of a reader’s inner life, having given him or her some sort of “gnosis” or special knowledge. Somehow, pop history, obtained with little effort or thought, helps some people define themselves and their relationship to others.
Our encounters consist not only of providing answers to questions but also of replacing misunderstandings with something much more satisfying and thoughtful. There is, after all, so much in real history that is equally exciting, more mysterious, more intellectually challenging, and a lot closer to the truth than can be found in popular interpretations of history.
Individuals who thrive on history are often eloquent, intelligent, and curious. They have a natural appetite for discovering the wonders of the past. The problem is that real history has often been filtered in a way to make it more palatable before it reaches them. Our cultural motifs, our educational systems, and our communication media have failed us. What society permits to trickle through about the past is often something sensational or simply false.
Spurious accounts that snare the gullible are readily available. The Internet, the media, including national publishers, and the History and Discovery television channels are the primary purveyors of this kind of history today. As professors, we are constantly bombarded with inquiries regarding some Internet article, new book, or television program that is either sensational or salacious. Certainly this is the case with The Da Vinci Code, a book that, more often than not, gets its facts wrong and therefore puts forth unsubstantiated conclusions of the past as though they were “gospel truths.”
A few flagrant examples will suffice to prove this point. Here are some of the most egregious historical errors in The Da Vinci Code:
1. There were more than eighty gospel accounts “considered for the New Testament” by the early church (p. 231).
2. The New Testament canon was decided upon by a “pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great” (p. 231).
3. Jesus was not considered divine but was “viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal,” until the Council of Nicea in the fourth century (p. 233).
4. The Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in the 1950s (p. 234).
5. The Catholic Church “tried very hard to suppress the release of” the Nag Hammadi codices (which The Da Vinci Code mistakenly identifies as the “Coptic scrolls”) (p. 234).
6. The Dead Sea Scrolls are “the earliest Christian records” (p. 245).
7. Mary Magdalene was from “the House of Benjamin” (p. 248).
8. “Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion” and was taken secretly to France by Jesus’ “trusted uncle, Joseph of Arimathea” (p. 255).
Dozens of similar blatantly false or completely unsubstantiated statements are found throughout The Da Vinci Code. Ironically, the novel’s title is a telling story itself. Leonardo was never known as “da Vinci.” Like Jesus of Nazareth, his name tells us where he is from: Leonardo, “of Vinci,” a small town in the heart of Tuscany.
Approaching the Code
The following question necessarily arises: Is it possible for individuals who are not necessarily pursuing a Ph.D. in history but who are genuinely interested in the past to be able to quickly detect the flawed historical context provided by a historical novel or a motion picture?
As intriguing as some pseudo-history may seem and as confident as we may be that we would never be so gullible as to be swept up by such doctrine, we know it is happening all around us. Pseudo-history attracts large numbers of accomplished people, even some with advanced degrees. For example, in looking at The Da Vinci Code as a case study, we must consider the following important points in assessing the facts: First, The Da Vinci Code purports that a secret cache of documents exists that contains information about Jesus and His alleged spouse Mary Magdalene. To make such a claim, we would either have had to view those documents or to know where they could be found. If such records are so readily available to the author, then we would want to know if they are available to others. Second, are there external historical sources that confirm the existence of such documents? The documents may exist, but that does not prove that they are ancient. They may indeed be forgeries. A reference to these documents from outside the collection would help confirm their existence. Third, does the internal logic of the account make sense–that is, can they be placed in a known historical setting?
For example, we might ask why the Catholic Church would suppress documents about Jesus’ marriage when that information in itself is not problematic to their theology. Or we might ask why there were followers of Jesus during Constantine’s reign who thought that Jesus was merely a human prophet. If He was nothing more than a married man who lived in the first century, then why did anyone follow Him? Finally, if the story as told in The Da Vinci Code is correct, then why did so many of the alleged conspirators leave clues to the world?
To ascertain the accuracy of historical claims, scholars and students must ask important questions such as those given above. Conclusions are sometimes not as important as how those conclusions were obtained, and the insightful investigator will ask not whether Jesus was married but rather if there is any credible information from His lifetime that suggests whether He was or was not.
History carries us toward an understanding of how the world is rather than how we might wish it to be. Encountering well-written, accurate history invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. Good history is refreshingly un-self-serving, circumspect, and understated.
Real history is astonishing. Real history is a delight. We are amazed at the prospects. Ultimately, history allows people long dead to talk directly to us. The books that record history can accompany us everywhere. Books are patient where we are slow to understand; they allow us to go over the difficult parts as many times as we wish, and they are never critical of our lapses. Books are the key to understanding the world.
In the end, our unending quest continues to be a journey of “discovery” as we visit that foreign land called the past. Further, our unending quest is also an effort to pass along the skills that will allow those who follow to embrace the past. Finally, we want to provide others a sense of discovery–the thrill of the journey. Ultimately, we must create the delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness and the most rigorous, respectful, questioning scrutiny. In the end, this approach will allow us to discover ourselves as we discover the world around us–including the past that has contributed to our present.
© 2006 Deseret Book Co.
Thanks Yuko. The Da Vinci Code is a marvelous read. That’s all. It will not shake your faith, if you have faith in God, in the first place.
Regardless if what Dan Brown wrote is true or not, having a strong faith is what matters. Its okay with me if Christ married a mortal. It would make Him more human therefore easier to relate to. What is blasphemous is GMA saying she was chosen by God to lead this nation.
Here’s another interesting article re Da Vinci Code. Enjoy! http://www.saintsalive.com/general/davincicode.htm
Sabi ni Anna “, Eto na si Eduardo hawak na naman sa tenga – heheh!
Sabi nga ng iba Takusa daw… heheh (Takut Sa Asawa)… ”
‘kala ko japanese word yang takusa … yon pala ay katulad sa UHAW …union of husbands afraid of wife.
Talk about hypocrisy, Manila council bans showing of Da Vinci in Manila while Cong. Abante wants it banned nationwide. Abante went as far as saying he cannot sit idly by while Jesus is being lambasted. But he certainly can sit idly by and even defend the very person who has been robbing the country blind and curtailing civil liberties. I’m a Catholic and a former seminarian, but I do encourage my kids to have an open mind to better understand the essence of our faith. To condemn something that I believe is fiction is idiocracy. Over-reaction and “pag-mamalinis” is hypocrisy in its purest form. Cong. Abante should be the one banned if you ask me. He’s too “righteous” kuno. Like Ermita, pareho lang silang sumasakay sa issue and trying to earn pogi-points with the CBCP.
Alitaptap, walang salita sa Nihongo na takusa. “Takusan” (marami) meron at saka “Yakuza.”
Sa totoo lang, nahahalata si Ermita at mga kapareho niya na hindi sila nagbabasa ng Biblia at mukhang naniniwala sila sa maling turo na si Mary Magdalene ay isang puta na inamin na ng Vatican na hindi totoo dahil ang babaing makasalanan na iniligtas ni Jesus Christ ay walang pangalan.
Tama si Goldenlion, anong masama kung naging asawa nga ni Jesus Christ si Mary Magdalene e naging tao naman siya basta ba legal ang kasal nila. Sinabi naman ni Jesus Christ na mas mataas ang Diyos Ama sa Kaniya bagamat walang makakalapit sa Diyos Ama kundi sa Ngalan Niya. Ang linaw naman ng Salita Niya. Sinabi Niyang sabihin na ng mga meron o walang pananampalataya sa Kaniya ang lahat, maging panglalait sa Kaniya huwag lang bastusin ang Diyos Espirit Santo. Sa isang salita, ang dapat lang naman natin na pag-ingatan ay huwag lapastanganin ang Diyos Espiritu Santo dahil iyon ay walang kapatawaran.
Ang tanong—gaano ang paggalang ng mga hypocrite na ito sa pagkabanal (sanctity) ng kasal? Ilang mga pamilya ang nawawasak dahil sa ginagawang pagpapaalis ng mga pilipino para matustusan ang walang kuwentang pamahalaan sa pamamalakad ng isang kriminal? Hindi ba iyan pangbabastos sa sagradong kasal?
Yes ystakei, because of the administration’s policy of sending our countrymen to work abroad, the rise in broken homes has soared. Worse is that the children are the ones left to face this harsh reality that they are the cause why their parents have to work abroad to give them a future. What GMA failed to see is the trauma of growing up without their parents by their side. These kids will surely grow up without proper moral guidance their parents could have given them. Time will come that the “basic unit” of society will one day cease to exist.
Banning a movie is stupid. People have the choice whether to watch it or not. For adults only na nga ang rating eh. Nobody is being forced to watch it.
Schumey:
We’re actually watching out for this Congressman Abante who is trying to copycat his fellow Bicolano, Galman, and another sipsip, Nograles, for the booties they receive from the Malacanang Squatter.
This nincompoop of a Congressman apparently is unaware of the provision of the Japan-Philippine Reparations Treaty that makes it illegal to have properties of the Philippines, not patrimonies, acquired through reparations to be sold without the consent of the Filipino people and to other nationals than Filipino and/or Japanese.
He is suggesting noisily to have the properties/patrimonies in Japan sold even when the Philippines actually has practically no more assets to boast of—for the veterans (kuno). Yes, para sa isang beterana sa kawalanghiyaan, katakawan, kasinungalingan at pangloloko ng taumbayan!!!
“Down with Abante!” will be the theme of our next street demonstration agains the Squatter’s administration in Tokyo.
good day po sa inyo….
i am a young reader of ABANTE. sa murang edad ko na 15,
ay hindi ko namamalayan na gusto kong magbasa ukol sa
pulika. kaya ko siguro nagustuhan basahin ang tungkol dito
ay dahil isa ako sa mamamayang pilipino na nasasaktan din sa
mga pinaggagagawang kalokohan ng administrasyong arroyo.
masyado nila tayong pinapahirapan at pinapa-ikot sa mga kasinungalingan na ginagawa nila. kinakahiya ko siya na maging presidente dahil kababaing tao eh.. hindi kaaya-aya ang ugali. malaki po talaga ang pinagkaiba niya kay ex-pres. cory aquino.
i am a 15 year old girl. i only want 2 say na i hate people na nangungurakot sa kaban ng bayan tulad ni arroyo. (hindi na po siya dapat igalang at tawaging presidente dahil sa marumi niyang ginagawa, at nakaw lang niya un). hindi siya kaaya-aya.
marami sa mga kaklase ko ang galit sa kanya. lalo na po kapag nagbabalita sa a.p. marami ang nagagalit sa kanya. kung mawala man siya sa mundo, who cares? magugulat na lang ako kung ilagay siya sa mga bayani.
ilang mga bagay na wala si gma sa iba:
pagmamahal sa kapwa
pagmamahal sa Diyos(nagpapakitang tao lang)
pagmamahal sa bayan
respeto sa mga bayani and special holidays (inuurong kasi)
dignidad
concern
trust mula sa mamamayan
mga positive advertisement(binabayaran lang niya or d kaya
naaawa lang kay arroyo)
………
wala na po akong maisip….
sa totoo lang po naaawa po ako kay mr. macasaet kasi nakulong siya, pinag-initan. sa kabila ng lahat, natutuwa po ako na malakas po ang loob niyo na sabunin si reyna kurakot or reyna magnanakaw.
kung ikaw po ay isang fairy godmother..
this is my wishes…..as a 15 y/0
sana po………..
mawala na si reyna kurakot
umunlad ang pilipinas
hindi na mangulelat ang bansa
sana magkaroon ng malinis na kapaligiran
wala nang problema
pero……….
kawawa naman po ung nxt president
kasi lahat ng problema ni reyna magnanakaw
mamamana niya.
un lang po kung may next pa!
baka 4ever na sia diyan….
cge po till here
marami p po akong assignment eh
siningit ko lang ito…..
more powers!!!!!
joanne of las piñas city