Many things are happening, that keep me from starting a proper travel blog. Apart from the fact that I am not technically travelling, of course. Not till the 21st. But home is where all the exciting things happen, and I've been away so long that every observation I make is new and surprising. Observations such as, beware of large kualis of stuff being deep-fried by the sides of roads and hawker stalls. I can feel the heat emanating from the kuali as I walk past. And then there's the crazy traffic, politics, friends who talk about politics, food, and...more food.
And so the headlines:
Yet another family member falls prey to mosquito-borne disease, but not too bad. Just two days in hospital. He thinks he got it from my housing area, hurray for home.
***
Turns out the political secretary found dead outside MACC headquarters, Teoh Beng Hock, is a relative. We don't know him personally, but he was a cousin of my generation in the second degree. Really not the best of omens as I consider the possibility of a career in politics, as a political secretary in particular. My aunt sent the family some money. This suicide under mysterious circumstances has all the trademarks of an incipient dictatorship, but it's more likely the result of the terrible randomness that plagues Malaysian bureaucracy. Somewhere, somehow, someone who doesn't know a thing about a proper bureacratic investigation was put into a position with too much power and too little regulation. He might have decided to emulate what he watched on TV. He might have been too short-sighted and lacked the self-awareness or reflective ability to understand human behaviour beyond the limited scope of psychological manipulation (and other associated techniques) during interrogation. Or this might really be a suicide (but chances of that are very low. Even if it was a suicide, it was not for personal reasons). Nobody knows, but everyone will remember.
***
I've had interesting conversations with everyone I've met, mostly about the state of Malaysia right now, the possibility of improving traffic in KL, the Malaysian "relak aje" mentality as opposed to the Singaporean kiasu mentality, the difference between ideals of community and actual community (which is not so ideal), and so on. This is the biggest plus about being back home for me. Everyone has something to say about life as they see it, and it's always a unique worldview with inimitable experiences. Not that this is unavailable in Singapore, but the latter does suffer from a kind of homogeneity because of the generic mould that people have been raised into. There are fewer differences to mirror oneself against; the tensions one faces in society there don't seem to promote contemplation beyond the surface of the material life. Whereas in Malaysia everyone is so caught up in the question of identity, especially in the racial and political aspect, that we can't help but be cultural observers. The accuracy of such observations, often made with untempered prejudice, is questionable, but it still makes for lively conversation.
Reflecting on these conversations, I see that one of the reasons Malaysians talk so much about politics is the need to come up with a counter-narrative to the incoherent and failed state narrative. On the other hand, the government of Singapore has forged a very strong state narrative about the road to success which the majority has adopted*. Malaysia consists of various groups who now claim separate migrant and non-migrant histories, but who all want the same thing. All the state talk about 1Malaysia and putting on a show of official visits will not resolve the fact that we are now, more than ever, split along racial lines, believing different things about where we come from and where we are going as a nation. And for all our regular Malaysian talk, meta-narrative through criticizing and cracking political jokes is not enough of a solution. It's a good thing, and necessary, but not enough. Even writing and producing really good academic papers on the current situation is not enough (though still absolutely necessary). It takes the co-operation of the people in power, on the political side, and most of the time they're not listening, or they don't understand what abstruse-sounding academics say. Is there a solution? I can only think of very banal and practical ones. No theories.
*Yes, the rise of a state narrative is a cycle between government and culture, apart from other factors, but I'm not about to start a political studies essay on the extent to which each is an influence on the other.
Showing posts with label Revelations Of Nothing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revelations Of Nothing. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Reunion--2009
"So, what did you guys do in Seremban?" my dad asked.I don't really know. Too many things, it would seem. Surprising that so much life could be squeezed into (or out of) just two days together. We visited the istana lama Seri Menanti. It's not very grand or elaborate, except for its mortise and tenon woodwork and wood-tiled roof. A very concise palace, with chambers that are just large enough to hold court. The balai berundang, where the king and his advisors would hold council, is scarcely the size of an average master bedroom. I was impressed. The irrational nationalist in me took this as evidence that the feudal system in the Minangkabau region was fairer than that in Europe, in that the royalty did not seem to draw massive profits at the expense of its people...but on second thought, it'd take far more rigorous digging to prove a hypothesis like that.
We also spent the evening talking about our lives, and what we've been through since the last time we saw each other (I mean saw each other and really talked, which was about two years ago). And gathering the threads of each person's story, I realise just how much growing up we've had to do in these past two years. Growing up in the sense that we've had to learn to deal with loss, with failure, doubt, and with current decisions and their future consequences. In a different sense, it's been a struggle to not become grown up, like the grown ups I never admired for being bitter and self-righteous and who seemed to always think they were right simply because it was unthinkable to be grown up and wrong at the same time. The toughest lesson I've had to learn this year is that God does walk with us through all the horrible things we go through. It's often easier to blame ourselves, blame others, or blame God and then decide that we have nothing to do with Him. It's much harder to blame God and deal with what comes out of that. Because it's a relationship that just won't go away. That's a very tough lesson, the kind that took Job and his buddies took about 40-odd chapters to learn.
At the end of my 42 chapters, will I be a hardened self-righteous cynic like Bildad, or a stupefied and awed Job? I do not want to live in the kind of grown up world where relationships mean nothing besides work done and salaries paid, something sold and something paid for at the supermarket with nothing more than a blink of the eye to mark the exchange. Society has developed, society has progressed, but to what end? This wasn't the world I ordered over ebay. I just woke up to it one morning. Alas, the world is not made to order. There're always grown ups to deal with. And the grown up inside us, who're the most insidious of
all.I'm glad to be a child of God.
I don't think there's any other
way to stay a child in this world.
Friday, May 15, 2009
No More Herrings, Please
Hmm...I should stop allowing news articles and comments on political issues to dominate my blog. This blog is going to turn into a political commentary. But...cannot...resist. The sheer ignorance: it is bliss.
MCA President Datuk Ong's remarks concerning disgruntled PSD scholarship rejects who surface annually in Malaysia after the scholarship results are released. Taken from: The Star Online http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3903342&sec=nation
***
The MCA, [Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat] said, received many complaints where students considered the best in certain states were not selected for the scholarships.
“Instead, the moment they were informed about their unsuccessful bid to obtain scholarships to study overseas, the students were asked whether they would accept offers to study at local public universities or foreign universities based in Malaysia.
“This is a very serious situation where students do not get enough time to consider their decision,” he said, adding that such circumstances must be stopped.
Currently, Ong said, the selection is based on four criteria - merit (20%), race (60%), Sabah and Sarawak citizens (10%) and students from underprivileged groups (10%).
He said if meritocracy was part of the criteria, the students’ co-curriculum activities and interviews should not be included for consideration.
“Meritocracy means it should solely be the students’ results and not any other areas,” he said.
***
I can hardly believe they quoted him right. He talked about everything except the glaring 60% race criteria. Ok, that's to be expected since race is counted as merit according to his party line. But not to use interview results? Co-curricular activities not involved in meritocracy? (ok, I dislike the CCA benchmark too, but a candidate should at least show ability to employ his or her time usefully). What if the interviewee reveals that he or she cannot commit to the bond? Sorry Datuk Seri, but the red herrings you throw out won't make your performing seals clap for you anymore.
This article is an example of the artful arrangement of information which I wrote about earlier, which leaves interpretive gaps for the readers where something cannot be said out loud. Another example can be found in the Bukit Botak investigative report, at:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3840470&sec=nation
It doesn't take much to figure which political party the grassroots leaders belong to as the opposition only recently took over Selangor, and the Bukit Botak fiasco started well over ten years ago. The Star's pretty nifty for an MCA-owned paper. But they still spike columns, sadly. No choice lah. Almost all main newspapers are owned either directly or indirectly by political parties. Almost.
MCA President Datuk Ong's remarks concerning disgruntled PSD scholarship rejects who surface annually in Malaysia after the scholarship results are released. Taken from: The Star Online http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3903342&sec=nation
***
The MCA, [Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat] said, received many complaints where students considered the best in certain states were not selected for the scholarships.
“Instead, the moment they were informed about their unsuccessful bid to obtain scholarships to study overseas, the students were asked whether they would accept offers to study at local public universities or foreign universities based in Malaysia.
“This is a very serious situation where students do not get enough time to consider their decision,” he said, adding that such circumstances must be stopped.
Currently, Ong said, the selection is based on four criteria - merit (20%), race (60%), Sabah and Sarawak citizens (10%) and students from underprivileged groups (10%).
He said if meritocracy was part of the criteria, the students’ co-curriculum activities and interviews should not be included for consideration.
“Meritocracy means it should solely be the students’ results and not any other areas,” he said.
***
I can hardly believe they quoted him right. He talked about everything except the glaring 60% race criteria. Ok, that's to be expected since race is counted as merit according to his party line. But not to use interview results? Co-curricular activities not involved in meritocracy? (ok, I dislike the CCA benchmark too, but a candidate should at least show ability to employ his or her time usefully). What if the interviewee reveals that he or she cannot commit to the bond? Sorry Datuk Seri, but the red herrings you throw out won't make your performing seals clap for you anymore.
This article is an example of the artful arrangement of information which I wrote about earlier, which leaves interpretive gaps for the readers where something cannot be said out loud. Another example can be found in the Bukit Botak investigative report, at:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3840470&sec=nation
It doesn't take much to figure which political party the grassroots leaders belong to as the opposition only recently took over Selangor, and the Bukit Botak fiasco started well over ten years ago. The Star's pretty nifty for an MCA-owned paper. But they still spike columns, sadly. No choice lah. Almost all main newspapers are owned either directly or indirectly by political parties. Almost.
Friday, May 08, 2009
7 May according to UM--er, I mean Utusan Online
Apparently Sivakumar had to be carried out by policemen in the DUN Perak May 7 drama. In Singapore, highlights like the AWARE EGM are a once-in-a-lifetime event. In Malaysia, there's always something exciting to look forward to. So of course I'd like to return. I'm a sucker for television drama, especially when it happens in real life. The bad scripts, the extreme polarization of viewpoints and over-the-top acting: it's all there. In parliament and state councils, no less. I agree with the pro-UMNO reporter in this article: "menghina institusi diraja" indeed. It is an insult to royalty when royalty has to be insulted in order to uphold the democratic institution. Possibly democracy is an insult to royalty. Certainly the opposition brand of democracy (which is very much about people's action) is an insult to royalty. Apparently the UMNO brand of democracy, which seems to be a mish-mash of old-world feudalism and democratic forms of parliament, is entirely in support of the king--or that's what the newspaper would have us believe (conspiracy!). Too bad nobody asks the king what he actually wants.
I felt like putting up this article (even though it is unworthy of being called a piece of reporting) in order to highlight one of the largest contributing factors to the terrible mess of racial polarization and institutional confusion that is our imaginary nation. Media itself is highly racialized and downright biased. In case you can't read Malay, this article--probably headlines in the hardcopy issue--unequivocally blames the opposition leaders' pride and disrespect for the ruckus at the Perak DUN (State Assembly). Of course the opposition leaders were causing the ruckus. Any newspaper would report that. Yet surely no self-respecting newspaper would put down such a libellous spin to the matter. Alas, I am too naive to believe in media objectivity in the first place. The English newspapers have learnt to veil their insults to get past the army of scrutineers waiting to shout "sedition!" and release a gag order. For example, The Star artfully complimented Hishamuddin as the 'smiling tiger' and said it was only reasonable that Najib demanded that his cousin change portfolio from education to home affairs in order to concentrate power. The opposition-sided newspapers usually resort to quoting the worst and most thoughtless speeches of the politicians, refraining from making any comment themselves but framing the comments to bring out the best effect of the politician's self-destructive stupidity. Newspapers biased towards the ruling party have no such need. The problem: very few news sources (especially hardcopy) are biased towards the objective perspective, or biased towards their own evaluation of democracy. Everyone likes to be part of a herd, I suppose. It's a survival instinct, especially in the political minefield.
For the record, Utusan sells itself as a self-respecting newspaper, and many people buy it as such, thinking that the act of reading constitutes knowing the truth of a matter and therefore makes them intelligent. Fortunately, Malaysia's readers are growing more and more discerning by the year, but that still does not solve the problem of the gaps in information flow between the
different language streams of Malaysia's mass media. Malay newspapers report on Malay parties while vilifying Chinese politicians, and the Chinese newspapers vice-versa. The English newspapers are maturing slowly, though there is a risk of heading for the easy route of sensationalism in seeking to speak against political stupidity as well. The gap between perspective and truth. The gap between the democratic institution and the constitutional monarchy. Totally exploited by conniving foxes in politics. Yes, yes, I'm too unkind. I'll fix my viewpoint a little: most of them don't have the kind of intelligence to actually be that crafty. They just lack the self-reflexivity to understand what they do instinctively to protect themselves, and therefore are unaware that it is in fact unethical and destabilizing. In Conrad's universe, these are the foolish, flabby, weak-eyed pretending devils, who don't have the vision to go all the way into the heart of darkness and see what actually lies at the core of evil. These are the most persistent kind. They never go far enough to self-destruct.
I felt like putting up this article (even though it is unworthy of being called a piece of reporting) in order to highlight one of the largest contributing factors to the terrible mess of racial polarization and institutional confusion that is our imaginary nation. Media itself is highly racialized and downright biased. In case you can't read Malay, this article--probably headlines in the hardcopy issue--unequivocally blames the opposition leaders' pride and disrespect for the ruckus at the Perak DUN (State Assembly). Of course the opposition leaders were causing the ruckus. Any newspaper would report that. Yet surely no self-respecting newspaper would put down such a libellous spin to the matter. Alas, I am too naive to believe in media objectivity in the first place. The English newspapers have learnt to veil their insults to get past the army of scrutineers waiting to shout "sedition!" and release a gag order. For example, The Star artfully complimented Hishamuddin as the 'smiling tiger' and said it was only reasonable that Najib demanded that his cousin change portfolio from education to home affairs in order to concentrate power. The opposition-sided newspapers usually resort to quoting the worst and most thoughtless speeches of the politicians, refraining from making any comment themselves but framing the comments to bring out the best effect of the politician's self-destructive stupidity. Newspapers biased towards the ruling party have no such need. The problem: very few news sources (especially hardcopy) are biased towards the objective perspective, or biased towards their own evaluation of democracy. Everyone likes to be part of a herd, I suppose. It's a survival instinct, especially in the political minefield.
For the record, Utusan sells itself as a self-respecting newspaper, and many people buy it as such, thinking that the act of reading constitutes knowing the truth of a matter and therefore makes them intelligent. Fortunately, Malaysia's readers are growing more and more discerning by the year, but that still does not solve the problem of the gaps in information flow between the
different language streams of Malaysia's mass media. Malay newspapers report on Malay parties while vilifying Chinese politicians, and the Chinese newspapers vice-versa. The English newspapers are maturing slowly, though there is a risk of heading for the easy route of sensationalism in seeking to speak against political stupidity as well. The gap between perspective and truth. The gap between the democratic institution and the constitutional monarchy. Totally exploited by conniving foxes in politics. Yes, yes, I'm too unkind. I'll fix my viewpoint a little: most of them don't have the kind of intelligence to actually be that crafty. They just lack the self-reflexivity to understand what they do instinctively to protect themselves, and therefore are unaware that it is in fact unethical and destabilizing. In Conrad's universe, these are the foolish, flabby, weak-eyed pretending devils, who don't have the vision to go all the way into the heart of darkness and see what actually lies at the core of evil. These are the most persistent kind. They never go far enough to self-destruct.
Sidang DUN Perak kecoh
 |
| Perasmian Sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak Ke-12 tertangguh kira-kira lima jam akibat kekecohan yang berlaku antara penyokong kerajaan dan pembangkang. Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir cuba mententeramkan keadaan di Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan, Ipoh semalam. – HANAFI KHAMIS |
IPOH 7 Mei – Kecoh dan menghina institusi diraja. Begitulah suasana sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) yang berlangsung hari ini. Majlis perasmian yang sepatutnya berlangsung kira-kira pukul 10 pagi tertunda ke pukul 3.15 petang.
Hanya selepas kira-kira lima jam drama keangkuhan dan kedegilan barisan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) pembangkang ‘ditayangkan’, barulah majlis pembukaan Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Kedua DUN Perak Ke-12 berjaya disempurnakan.
Itu pun selepas Pemangku Raja Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah dan Raja Puan Besar, Tuanku Zara Salim yang tiba kira-kira pukul 9.30 pagi terpaksa menunggu di kamar diraja kira-kira lima jam.
Sedangkan sebelum itu, baginda telah pun memeriksa barisan kawalan kehormat dan sepatutnya merasmikan majlis pembukaan selepas itu.
Peliknya, selepas menimbulkan kekecohan sehingga berlaku adegan tolak-menolak, pergelutan kecil dan hamburan kata-kata kesat, ADUN pakatan pembangkang akhirnya sanggup pula untuk akur.
Kesemuanya itu didorong oleh sikap angkuh, degil dan tindakan mempermainkan kemuliaan Dewan sehingga mewujudkan suasana tegang dan menuntut Raja Dr. Nazrin supaya ‘menunggu’.
Dengan diketuai bekas Speaker, V. Sivakumar, Aturan Mesyuarat yang sepatutnya membantu melancarkan perjalanan sidang DUN diketepikan.
Malah, pakatan pembangkang seolah-olah lupa diri dan tidak menerima hakikat bahawa mereka bukan lagi suara majoriti.
Sebaik berakhirnya upacara membaca doa, Sivakumar bertegas tidak mahu memulakan sidang DUN selagi Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir dan enam Exconya berada di dalam Dewan.
Beliau turut mengarahkan tiga Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Bebas iaitu Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang), Mohd. Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) dan Jamaluddin Mohd. Radzi (Behrang) meninggalkan Dewan dengan segera.
Beliau juga mengumumkan tempat duduk ADUN adalah berdasarkan status quo seperti sebelum ini.
‘‘Saya tak mahu ketujuh-tujuh orang (Zambry dan enam ahli Exco) yang digantung berada dalam Dewan. Keputusan ini dibuat oleh Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan yang telah diterima pada 3 Mac lalu, bukan saya.
‘‘Saya juga arah ketiga-tiga orang yang saya anggap telah meletak jawatan keluar daripada Dewan. Saya hendak 10 orang ini (tujuh ADUN BN dan tiga ADUN Bebas) keluar Dewan dulu baru mulakan sidang,” katanya sebaik mengambil tempat duduk Speaker dalam DUN di sini hari ini.
Bagaimanapun, Zambry dan sembilan lagi ADUN terbabit tidak mempedulikan arahan Sivakumar.
Kekecohan berlarutan sehingga ada ketikanya hampir bertumbuk apabila kedua-dua pihak cuba menegakkan pendapat masing-masing.
Dalam suasana kelam kabut itu, Zambry membuat usul memecat Sivakumar sebagai Speaker dan Timbalan Speaker, Yit Foong mengumumkan mengambil alih tugas menggantikan Sivakumar.
Bagaimanapun Sivakumar menegaskan, usul itu tidak boleh diterima daripada seseorang yang telah digantung keahliannya sebagai ADUN.
Keputusan menggantung 10 ADUN tersebut daripada menghadiri sidang DUN dibuat oleh Sivakumar menerusi Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan yang bersidang di bawah pokok pada 3 Mac lalu.
Zambry kemudian mengulangi usul yang sama dan sekali lagi disokong oleh semua ADUN Barisan Nasional (BN) dan tiga ADUN Bebas.
Sebaik sahaja usul pelantikan Speaker baru diluluskan oleh penyokong BN, Yit Foong mengisytiharkan R. Ganesan sebagai Speaker baru sebelum dipakaikan jubah oleh Zambry.
Selepas mengangkat sumpah jawatan di bahagian tempat duduk ADUN BN, bekas ADUN Sungkai itu mengambil alih sidang Dewan daripada Yit Foong.
Empat usul telah diluluskan oleh Ganesan iaitu pelantikan ahli baru bagi Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negeri, Jawatankuasa Perintah-Perintah Tetap dan Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan.
Turut diluluskan ialah usul membatalkan sidang DUN Perak di bawah pokok pada 3 Mac lalu.
Sivakumar yang sejak awal mempertikaikan kedudukan Ganesan kemudian menegaskan beliau menolak kesemua usul tersebut.
Memandangkan situasi yang semakin tegang, Zambry mengusulkan supaya sidang Dewan ditangguhkan selama sejam bermula pukul 11.15 pagi.
Walaupun ditangguhkan, Sivakumar tetap tidak berganjak daripada tempat duduk Speaker sejak pukul 9.45 pagi.
Sidang Dewan sekali lagi ditangguhkan pada pukul 1 petang. Ketika ini Sivakumar masih juga berada di tempatnya.
Keadaan agak terkawal apabila polis mula memasuki Dewan dan mengarahkan Sivakumar bangun daripada kerusi Speaker yang didudukinya.
Kedegilannya menyebabkan polis dan beberapa petugas Dewan terpaksa ‘mengangkat’ serta mengusung beliau ke luar.
Walaupun bekas Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dan ADUN pembangkang masih lagi mempertikaikan tindakan terhadap Sivakumar, namun kehadiran Raja Dr. Nazrin berjaya menenangkan keadaan.
Selepas baginda berjumpa dengan Mohammad Nizar dan ADUN Sitiawan, Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, pembangkang dilihat mula mematuhi peraturan Dewan.
~dipetik dari Utusan Online, 7 Mei 2009 http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2009&dt=0508&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Muka_Hadapan&pg=mh_01.htm
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Observations and Reflections on the AWARE EGM.
Dies Irae
Out of curiosity and concern, I made my way to Suntec to observe the happenings at AWARE. I couldn't go in for the first part of the meeting; at 2pm there were still 600 people queuing up to get in. I managed to slip in towards the end, about two hours before the results came in.
While the votes were being counted, concerned members made their way to the front to speak (each person has a right to three minutes on the floor). Some spoke on sex education, sexuality and choices, addressing the exco's agenda concerning AWARE's education programs. Some spoke on equality and representation. But most spoke about their disgust at the way the exco had taken power and about the exco's actions from then up to the EGM. The exco were pretty brave to sit at the table, poker-faced, taking in hours and hours of heckling, jeering and verbal attacks. I will say I witnessed the best and worst of human nature. It was exhilirating to see people--Singaporeans--so concerned about advocacy and representation, about the direction of one of the pillars of Singapore's civil society. Yet that passion often burst out in ungracious displays of anger and ad hominem speeches. The crowd's anger was justified, I suppose, and overall was channeled productively. The anger was part of the damage that the exco had caused, and not just a reaction to the damage, and that is why I was not exactly overjoyed to see people so angry. By taking power through unfair means, the exco had structured the discourse surrounding AWARE leadership into an "us" versus "them", winner and loser mentality. This isn't just damaging for AWARE, it is damaging to any effort for concerted action--whether between nations, between civil society and the government, or between secular and religious groups. By using manipulative means to take power, by failing to see their lack of integrity and resigning honourably even before the vote of no confidence, by failing to resign immediately after the results of the vote came in, the exco triggered a mode of action which involved othering and retribution towards themselves. The victory speeches by the new exco then were bittersweet, because of the necessity of winning at all, of re-establishing good values on a mode of action and retribution. The honourable thing to do would have been to resign and apologise in order to prevent the downward spiral of reprisals.
Specifically, the church's relations with secular society have gone through a shake-up. As an AWARE founding member said, she was very disappointed in their actions and their "Christian" agenda which had eroded the good faith between the church, AWARE and groups of different religions. She gave the best (and most gracious) three-minute speech, in my opinion. She started in good faith, believing that the ladies of the exco were nice women who meant well--not something that anyone else was able to do with their finger-pointing, shouting and accusations. Yet her point was the most powerful and relevant. Like her, I am disappointed. The church throughout history already has a lot to answer for: the political entanglements of medieval times which resulted in the Crusades, the political entanglements now which resulted in the Iraq War taking on a religious slant. We have to be very careful as to how we approach the sacred/secular divide that was the fallout of religious-political pursuits like the crusades and the witch-hunts. We will continue to have matters to apologise for, I suppose. Learning to impact a society obsessed with and oppressed by discourses of power through an ethic of powerlessness is difficult. After all, we are of the same imperfect substance as the hell-bound that we preach so often about.
Beyond AWARE
The challenge for the church in getting involved with politics and secular social movements is to build a common platform for social progress, not to ensure that the church's perspective on issues of gay rights or abortion supercede that of other groups in society. There is a difference. The church should continue to represent what it believes is the best way of social progress, but our duty is to represent, to be witnesses, not to be law enforcers and winners of the global gameshow by trumping others and proving that God is right through loud (sometimes not even clever) arguments and power plays.
In any case, the church's first duty is to God and therefore to high standards of integrity when committing to actions to relieve suffering. Too often, God's agenda for the welfare of mankind is hijacked to justify verbal abuse, alienation or unethical actions. How different is that from suicide bombers who kill in the name of Islam? The Bible's standards are clear, and very high. To call another "fool," to hate another, is the same as committing murder in one's heart. Perhaps the visible consequences are drastically different--people don't die from being hated. But Jesus' point is that the degree of guilt is the same. Whether personal or political, big or small, hidden or known, there is no difference in the degree of badness that goes into words and actions that violate the individual. What a high standard that is. No wonder God won't let anyone into heaven on their own terms. Our standards are a little too low.
All too often we Christians suffer from this world domination mentality, because we are people of one truth, like the Jews and the Muslims. Yet between that one truth and the first good action that arises from believing in it is a chasm filled with misperception, the limits of human judgment, hypocrisy and such-like. We see as through a glass darkly. That phrase has always expressed for me the idea that human perception can never see truth in its entirety. Life on this side of eternity is composed of fragmented perceptions and unstable interpretations (maybe I will write on the Christian view of human access to truth after I read up on theology and philosophy, but for now let's just leave it at this). If we really believe that Christ is God and coming back to judge the world, then who are we to set ourselves up as arbitrators and judges of the world's morality? Or to think that we have all the answers? We think that God has all the answers. That's a different ethic altogether.
There. Now I can look back at what I've written and know the potential that I have to mess things up if I forget that truth and perspective are different things. That was what was bothering me. What if I am living by a "failed paradigm," in the words of an acquaintance? What's also bothering me--but only slightly--is the list of assertions I have just made. Been hanging around too many philo friends, maybe. But then this isn't an argument. Just a series of reflections on conclusions I have already drawn for myself, or which, one might say, were drawn for me by my religion. Being raised a Christian, and having accepted Christ as a child, I only knew that I had been saved. One does not necessarily know what one has been saved from, and if one doesn't know, then what does one really believe in? A set of religious principles to live a good life? Or a God who has saved me from an eternity of recursive reasoning that cannot escape the condition of guilt? Dishonour descends upon one's shoulders, and who will take it away from you?* I will spend my entire life thinking backwards, I suppose, in order to work out my salvation. I guess that's why I like questions from non-Christian friends on Christianity and faith. They're always interesting to consider.
___________
* from Diary of a Bad Year by J.M Coetzee
Out of curiosity and concern, I made my way to Suntec to observe the happenings at AWARE. I couldn't go in for the first part of the meeting; at 2pm there were still 600 people queuing up to get in. I managed to slip in towards the end, about two hours before the results came in.
While the votes were being counted, concerned members made their way to the front to speak (each person has a right to three minutes on the floor). Some spoke on sex education, sexuality and choices, addressing the exco's agenda concerning AWARE's education programs. Some spoke on equality and representation. But most spoke about their disgust at the way the exco had taken power and about the exco's actions from then up to the EGM. The exco were pretty brave to sit at the table, poker-faced, taking in hours and hours of heckling, jeering and verbal attacks. I will say I witnessed the best and worst of human nature. It was exhilirating to see people--Singaporeans--so concerned about advocacy and representation, about the direction of one of the pillars of Singapore's civil society. Yet that passion often burst out in ungracious displays of anger and ad hominem speeches. The crowd's anger was justified, I suppose, and overall was channeled productively. The anger was part of the damage that the exco had caused, and not just a reaction to the damage, and that is why I was not exactly overjoyed to see people so angry. By taking power through unfair means, the exco had structured the discourse surrounding AWARE leadership into an "us" versus "them", winner and loser mentality. This isn't just damaging for AWARE, it is damaging to any effort for concerted action--whether between nations, between civil society and the government, or between secular and religious groups. By using manipulative means to take power, by failing to see their lack of integrity and resigning honourably even before the vote of no confidence, by failing to resign immediately after the results of the vote came in, the exco triggered a mode of action which involved othering and retribution towards themselves. The victory speeches by the new exco then were bittersweet, because of the necessity of winning at all, of re-establishing good values on a mode of action and retribution. The honourable thing to do would have been to resign and apologise in order to prevent the downward spiral of reprisals.
Specifically, the church's relations with secular society have gone through a shake-up. As an AWARE founding member said, she was very disappointed in their actions and their "Christian" agenda which had eroded the good faith between the church, AWARE and groups of different religions. She gave the best (and most gracious) three-minute speech, in my opinion. She started in good faith, believing that the ladies of the exco were nice women who meant well--not something that anyone else was able to do with their finger-pointing, shouting and accusations. Yet her point was the most powerful and relevant. Like her, I am disappointed. The church throughout history already has a lot to answer for: the political entanglements of medieval times which resulted in the Crusades, the political entanglements now which resulted in the Iraq War taking on a religious slant. We have to be very careful as to how we approach the sacred/secular divide that was the fallout of religious-political pursuits like the crusades and the witch-hunts. We will continue to have matters to apologise for, I suppose. Learning to impact a society obsessed with and oppressed by discourses of power through an ethic of powerlessness is difficult. After all, we are of the same imperfect substance as the hell-bound that we preach so often about.
Beyond AWARE
The challenge for the church in getting involved with politics and secular social movements is to build a common platform for social progress, not to ensure that the church's perspective on issues of gay rights or abortion supercede that of other groups in society. There is a difference. The church should continue to represent what it believes is the best way of social progress, but our duty is to represent, to be witnesses, not to be law enforcers and winners of the global gameshow by trumping others and proving that God is right through loud (sometimes not even clever) arguments and power plays.
In any case, the church's first duty is to God and therefore to high standards of integrity when committing to actions to relieve suffering. Too often, God's agenda for the welfare of mankind is hijacked to justify verbal abuse, alienation or unethical actions. How different is that from suicide bombers who kill in the name of Islam? The Bible's standards are clear, and very high. To call another "fool," to hate another, is the same as committing murder in one's heart. Perhaps the visible consequences are drastically different--people don't die from being hated. But Jesus' point is that the degree of guilt is the same. Whether personal or political, big or small, hidden or known, there is no difference in the degree of badness that goes into words and actions that violate the individual. What a high standard that is. No wonder God won't let anyone into heaven on their own terms. Our standards are a little too low.
All too often we Christians suffer from this world domination mentality, because we are people of one truth, like the Jews and the Muslims. Yet between that one truth and the first good action that arises from believing in it is a chasm filled with misperception, the limits of human judgment, hypocrisy and such-like. We see as through a glass darkly. That phrase has always expressed for me the idea that human perception can never see truth in its entirety. Life on this side of eternity is composed of fragmented perceptions and unstable interpretations (maybe I will write on the Christian view of human access to truth after I read up on theology and philosophy, but for now let's just leave it at this). If we really believe that Christ is God and coming back to judge the world, then who are we to set ourselves up as arbitrators and judges of the world's morality? Or to think that we have all the answers? We think that God has all the answers. That's a different ethic altogether.
There. Now I can look back at what I've written and know the potential that I have to mess things up if I forget that truth and perspective are different things. That was what was bothering me. What if I am living by a "failed paradigm," in the words of an acquaintance? What's also bothering me--but only slightly--is the list of assertions I have just made. Been hanging around too many philo friends, maybe. But then this isn't an argument. Just a series of reflections on conclusions I have already drawn for myself, or which, one might say, were drawn for me by my religion. Being raised a Christian, and having accepted Christ as a child, I only knew that I had been saved. One does not necessarily know what one has been saved from, and if one doesn't know, then what does one really believe in? A set of religious principles to live a good life? Or a God who has saved me from an eternity of recursive reasoning that cannot escape the condition of guilt? Dishonour descends upon one's shoulders, and who will take it away from you?* I will spend my entire life thinking backwards, I suppose, in order to work out my salvation. I guess that's why I like questions from non-Christian friends on Christianity and faith. They're always interesting to consider.
___________
* from Diary of a Bad Year by J.M Coetzee
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Brittle Crazie Glass
As the worst has blown over, we resume our normal transmission. I began this entry the Monday before Easter, and finished it today.
***
THE WINDOWS.
LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.
But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.
Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.
~ George Herbert
It is not for us to greet each other or bid farewell we live on archipelagos
and that water these words what can they do what can they do prince
~ Herbert Zbiegniew in "Elegy of Fortinbras"
Man is a brittle crazie glass. We are unsound, liable to fall to pieces at any moment. And is that it then? My life carries no truth of its own unless God's truth is burned into me to bring that testimony into focus. My words mean nothing unless my colours are a witness to Christ's glory--unless I live in a manner that testifies to the reality of the love of an unseen God. An unseen God who allows pain, who allows dreams to fail, who is as full of wrath as he is full of grace. To quote a friend: "the problem of God has yet to be solved." If it had been solved, we would have moved on from God. If the problem of God can be resolved, then he is just an idea and we wouldn't really need him. Then he would just be a convenient scapegoat when life gets too difficult, or a prop, a kind of totem from which one may draw strength. I think after all this time, and all I've learnt, I still believe precisely because the problem of God has yet to be solved.
Speech alone, what can it do? My identity as a speaking being separates me so completely from another--even if speech forms the waterways of meaning. In the elegy, Fortinbras is guilty for speaking and surviving Hamlet, and having nothing to show for it. Every act of speech cannot escape the bubble of our self-interest. These words, what can they do? They cannot reach you as I wish them to reach you, because I speak for my own sake. Are we then born into a state of pathological self-destruction? Unable to love for the sake of another. Dare we believe that we can find a way to see beyond ourselves? If now I see as through a glass, darkly, will there be a time when I can look clearly into eternity and find coherence there?
So I'm looking for a word, the Word, that forms the guarantee for the meaning of all other words. So that they're not just empty words that fall to the ground once spoken. Like that guarantee God gives in Isaiah: My word will not return to me empty. Words that are doctrine and life, that batter one's conscience and that demand reaction. Words that speak not belatedly to the dead Hamlet, not useless words, but words that speak life. John Chapter 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is known as the Word incarnate. Such a claim to guarantee all surely demands a reaction: you know me, thus you know the Father and thus you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. I'm looking for a guarantee, that at the end of it all, the pain wasn't worth nothing. Pain that makes life so inescapably real, it cannot be an illusion. Pain that demands a meaning. Pain that burns doctrine into life and life into doctrine, annealing it like colour is annealed onto glass to make the stained glass windows that shine gloriously in the light of the rising sun. So I'm looking...
***
THE WINDOWS.
LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.
But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.
Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.
~ George Herbert
It is not for us to greet each other or bid farewell we live on archipelagos
and that water these words what can they do what can they do prince
~ Herbert Zbiegniew in "Elegy of Fortinbras"
Man is a brittle crazie glass. We are unsound, liable to fall to pieces at any moment. And is that it then? My life carries no truth of its own unless God's truth is burned into me to bring that testimony into focus. My words mean nothing unless my colours are a witness to Christ's glory--unless I live in a manner that testifies to the reality of the love of an unseen God. An unseen God who allows pain, who allows dreams to fail, who is as full of wrath as he is full of grace. To quote a friend: "the problem of God has yet to be solved." If it had been solved, we would have moved on from God. If the problem of God can be resolved, then he is just an idea and we wouldn't really need him. Then he would just be a convenient scapegoat when life gets too difficult, or a prop, a kind of totem from which one may draw strength. I think after all this time, and all I've learnt, I still believe precisely because the problem of God has yet to be solved.
Speech alone, what can it do? My identity as a speaking being separates me so completely from another--even if speech forms the waterways of meaning. In the elegy, Fortinbras is guilty for speaking and surviving Hamlet, and having nothing to show for it. Every act of speech cannot escape the bubble of our self-interest. These words, what can they do? They cannot reach you as I wish them to reach you, because I speak for my own sake. Are we then born into a state of pathological self-destruction? Unable to love for the sake of another. Dare we believe that we can find a way to see beyond ourselves? If now I see as through a glass, darkly, will there be a time when I can look clearly into eternity and find coherence there?
So I'm looking for a word, the Word, that forms the guarantee for the meaning of all other words. So that they're not just empty words that fall to the ground once spoken. Like that guarantee God gives in Isaiah: My word will not return to me empty. Words that are doctrine and life, that batter one's conscience and that demand reaction. Words that speak not belatedly to the dead Hamlet, not useless words, but words that speak life. John Chapter 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is known as the Word incarnate. Such a claim to guarantee all surely demands a reaction: you know me, thus you know the Father and thus you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. I'm looking for a guarantee, that at the end of it all, the pain wasn't worth nothing. Pain that makes life so inescapably real, it cannot be an illusion. Pain that demands a meaning. Pain that burns doctrine into life and life into doctrine, annealing it like colour is annealed onto glass to make the stained glass windows that shine gloriously in the light of the rising sun. So I'm looking...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Quotes of the Day
People ask us how we're taking it. With a sense of humour, I guess.
I can't read without my teeth. The words won't go in.
~Dad joking/sulking when we couldn't find his three false teeth.
Lu mau jual darah saya ke?
~Dad to nurse, because they take a blood sample everyday.
I can't read without my teeth. The words won't go in.
~Dad joking/sulking when we couldn't find his three false teeth.
Lu mau jual darah saya ke?
~Dad to nurse, because they take a blood sample everyday.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Quotes of the Day
11 April
"You're holding it upside down, darling."
~Mum to Dad as he wishes me happy birthday on the phone.
12 April
"They gave me a lumberjack"
~Dad's brain-fevered description of the lumbar puncture procedure he underwent.
"Who is this?"
~Dad not recognizing Mum, asks me.
"Do you see Mummy now?"
"Yes, she's behind me."
~When mum was at his side
13 April
"Peter and Susan visited me at 4.30am."
~on friends visiting in the morning (not so early, of course)
"Who is that?"
~Dad not recognizing me, asks Mum.
"2.30; 6.30; 2.30"
~when we asked Dad to read the clock. It was 1.30pm.
"This place is like a circus."
~on activities in the ward at night (which include noisy old lady who cries out "cuci" randomly and old man on ventilator who pulls off his oxygen mask)
"Tak boleh mati sini. Mau mati pergi tempat lain."
~frustrated nurse to old man attempting to remove oxygen mask.
"Doctors here, they purposely make the time very slow. They move the clock backwards."
~Dad, telling my uncle his suspicions (everytime he sleeps he thinks its a new day).
"You're holding it upside down, darling."
~Mum to Dad as he wishes me happy birthday on the phone.
12 April
"They gave me a lumberjack"
~Dad's brain-fevered description of the lumbar puncture procedure he underwent.
"Who is this?"
~Dad not recognizing Mum, asks me.
"Do you see Mummy now?"
"Yes, she's behind me."
~When mum was at his side
13 April
"Peter and Susan visited me at 4.30am."
~on friends visiting in the morning (not so early, of course)
"Who is that?"
~Dad not recognizing me, asks Mum.
"2.30; 6.30; 2.30"
~when we asked Dad to read the clock. It was 1.30pm.
"This place is like a circus."
~on activities in the ward at night (which include noisy old lady who cries out "cuci" randomly and old man on ventilator who pulls off his oxygen mask)
"Tak boleh mati sini. Mau mati pergi tempat lain."
~frustrated nurse to old man attempting to remove oxygen mask.
"Doctors here, they purposely make the time very slow. They move the clock backwards."
~Dad, telling my uncle his suspicions (everytime he sleeps he thinks its a new day).
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Quel Malheur...
J'ai lu cette nouvelle hier. Et aujourd'hui mon frère a appelé pour me dire que mes parents sont malade et ont été hospitalisé.
La dengue menace 2.5mds de personnes
AFP
07/04/2009
Deux milliards et demi de personnes, dans une centaine de pays tropicaux, sont exposées au risque d'infection par la dengue, maladie tropicale en pleine expansion qui est la plus répandue après le paludisme, ont indiqué aujourd'hui des spécialistes à Paris.
En cause dans cette "expansion géographique" : transports des populations, urbanisation massive et désordonnée, problème d'évacuation des eaux usées, lutte insuffisante contre les moustiques vecteurs de cette sorte de "grippe tropicale" et les "gîtes" (eaux stagnantes...) qui favorisent leur prolifération, a notamment rappelé le Dr Raman Velayudhan, de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, lors d'une conférence de presse organisée par la firme Sanofi Pasteur, division vaccins du Groupe Sanofi-Aventis.
Sanofi Pasteur teste en Thaïlande son candidat vaccin contre la dengue destiné aux enfants et dirigé contre les quatre formes du virus. Cette étude d'efficacité, débutée en février, devrait englober 4002 sujets, dont 2/3 recevront le vaccin testé.
Sanofi Pasteur mène aussi des études cliniques (enfants et adultes) au Mexique, au Pérou et aux Philippines.
"On attend les résultats dans deux ans", a indiqué le Dr Jean Lang, de Sanofi Pasteur. Si tout va bien, selon lui, "vers 2015-2016, le vaccin pourrait être disponible et même peut-être un peu plus tôt".
****
C'est un peu trop tard. Mes parents sont infectés par le virus Chikunguya. =(
La dengue menace 2.5mds de personnes
AFP
07/04/2009
Deux milliards et demi de personnes, dans une centaine de pays tropicaux, sont exposées au risque d'infection par la dengue, maladie tropicale en pleine expansion qui est la plus répandue après le paludisme, ont indiqué aujourd'hui des spécialistes à Paris.
En cause dans cette "expansion géographique" : transports des populations, urbanisation massive et désordonnée, problème d'évacuation des eaux usées, lutte insuffisante contre les moustiques vecteurs de cette sorte de "grippe tropicale" et les "gîtes" (eaux stagnantes...) qui favorisent leur prolifération, a notamment rappelé le Dr Raman Velayudhan, de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, lors d'une conférence de presse organisée par la firme Sanofi Pasteur, division vaccins du Groupe Sanofi-Aventis.
Sanofi Pasteur teste en Thaïlande son candidat vaccin contre la dengue destiné aux enfants et dirigé contre les quatre formes du virus. Cette étude d'efficacité, débutée en février, devrait englober 4002 sujets, dont 2/3 recevront le vaccin testé.
Sanofi Pasteur mène aussi des études cliniques (enfants et adultes) au Mexique, au Pérou et aux Philippines.
"On attend les résultats dans deux ans", a indiqué le Dr Jean Lang, de Sanofi Pasteur. Si tout va bien, selon lui, "vers 2015-2016, le vaccin pourrait être disponible et même peut-être un peu plus tôt".
****
C'est un peu trop tard. Mes parents sont infectés par le virus Chikunguya. =(
Saturday, April 04, 2009
On Donne
A Hymn To God The Father
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.
~ John Donne
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.
~ John Donne
I've found Donne's poetry very useful actually, because it expresses so much struggling and uncertainty. I was thinking about it, and I realise it's a lot like Jacob on the mountain, wrestling with the angel. I think for the longest time he had no idea who he was fighting, until daybreak when he was defeated into submission, his hip wrenched to force him into a position of worship. Only then could he plead for a blessing, and receive it. A recurring line in Donne, especially when he wants assurance from God, is "the Lord throws down, that he may raise up." Most literary critics think Donne struggled with great uncertainty in his faith. But I read the poems and I wonder, if we have failed to identify the real struggle? Maybe he is struggling with God, and for him certainty was in that struggle, and it was not the effort to remove the struggle or defeat the foe that would deliver him from uncertainty. If you're struggling with your doubts, fears, pride or whatever, look again. At break of day, you may just find that all along you were struggling not with yourself or an unknown enemy, but with God. And that's a great relief to me, because I never can face my sins directly. It's kind of a different way of looking at one's salvation, I guess. We Protestants suffer from this "battle your sins" mentality, when we really should be facing the other way. It's submit to God, resist the devil and flee temptation.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Revelations of Nothing
Just visited my old blog. Haven't seen it for years. I'm surprised by the variety of things I thought about in those years, and how boring I found school life sometimes. I thought I enjoyed school a lot, but now I remember I enjoyed the access I had to libraries more than I actually liked classes and the pressure to perform. It's something that hasn't deserted me all these years--I can't shake off the academic perfectionism I have cultivated over the years. Can't even tell when it started--in Malaysia or here. It certainly crystallized under the need to maintain my scholarship. In a sense, in order to keep my beloved libraries, I had to leave off reading random crap and actually study. So the scholarship ensured I had a good balance of state-sponsored syllabi and random reading. If anyone asks me again, why I came to Singapore, I shall say, "For literature and for the libraries."
I also know why I abandoned the old blog. It was too angst-ridden. Looking back at a distance, I grimace at how my thoughts just bleed across the screen in a cool teal that belies the workings of a heat-oppressed brain. I'm much more reticent now. This is probably the first post on this blog which is confessional in nature, without being at all fictionalized or anything. Shall have to give it a new tag. Like: Warning! Read only when you want to be bored out of your wits. Or: Private property. Trespassers will be persecuted by revelations of nothing.
Matters on my mind. Concerning religion.
1. If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, then it's possible for him to see all our future choices and act in a manner which both preserves our free will and fulfils his ultimate will. I.e predestination and free will is a paradox only reconcilable if God has complete knowledge and full sovereignty. Discuss.
2. The ability to discern good and evil is different from the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is not a precondition for having the ability to discern good and evil. Discuss.
3. What does my existence amount to? If I am only a heap of dust facing the accident of consciousness, then ethics and morality count for nothing but the amelioration of an existence that has no reason for being in the first place. Question I would ask if I didn't believe in God.
4. Why do people--even intellectuals--automatically assume that conservative religious people are either not rational or have never reasoned through their faith? (Probably because it's usually true, haha. And the bad rep of many vocal and unthinking conservatives who go around condemning everyone except themselves).
5. "I find it unfair that God has it all rigged from the start." Comment of friend on book of Romans, which states that God set up the law in order to condemn mankind for our sin, which resulted in death, so that we would realize we needed to be saved through Christ. Theologians usually call this rigging "grace," but plenty of Miltonists would agree with God being very underhand. To the shrewd he shows himself shrewd, I guess.
I also know why I abandoned the old blog. It was too angst-ridden. Looking back at a distance, I grimace at how my thoughts just bleed across the screen in a cool teal that belies the workings of a heat-oppressed brain. I'm much more reticent now. This is probably the first post on this blog which is confessional in nature, without being at all fictionalized or anything. Shall have to give it a new tag. Like: Warning! Read only when you want to be bored out of your wits. Or: Private property. Trespassers will be persecuted by revelations of nothing.
Matters on my mind. Concerning religion.
1. If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, then it's possible for him to see all our future choices and act in a manner which both preserves our free will and fulfils his ultimate will. I.e predestination and free will is a paradox only reconcilable if God has complete knowledge and full sovereignty. Discuss.
2. The ability to discern good and evil is different from the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is not a precondition for having the ability to discern good and evil. Discuss.
3. What does my existence amount to? If I am only a heap of dust facing the accident of consciousness, then ethics and morality count for nothing but the amelioration of an existence that has no reason for being in the first place. Question I would ask if I didn't believe in God.
4. Why do people--even intellectuals--automatically assume that conservative religious people are either not rational or have never reasoned through their faith? (Probably because it's usually true, haha. And the bad rep of many vocal and unthinking conservatives who go around condemning everyone except themselves).
5. "I find it unfair that God has it all rigged from the start." Comment of friend on book of Romans, which states that God set up the law in order to condemn mankind for our sin, which resulted in death, so that we would realize we needed to be saved through Christ. Theologians usually call this rigging "grace," but plenty of Miltonists would agree with God being very underhand. To the shrewd he shows himself shrewd, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)