Every time I recall Coral Castle and the Taj Mahal, I just wonder if love is worth such a tribute and sacrifice? I will focus more on Coral Castle because it is the work of one man, rather than a ruler capable of mobilize an army of workers.
Edward Leedskalnin built his castle from coral stones that he had hewn from his parcel of land. He carved and put together every single block of stone within his castle single-handedly. The largest of these rocks weighed approximately 30 tons and two of the tallest stones stood over 7.6m high. He carved out an accurate sundial, a water well, 25 rocking chairs, a fountain, a bath tub and even a polaris telescope! [Read More Here]
Amazingly, he didn't do this for love, he did it for his lost love, his "Sweet Sixteen". Is it possible for someone to be so hardbroken that he spent the rest of his life building his dream home for the woman he wanted to be with? Or is it a vain attempt to prove his undying love for her throught a symbolic construction a a monument to her beauty, like the Taj Mahal?
The most amazing part is yet to come, Coral Castle was built by Edward alone, without the help of any machinery. He was very secretive as to how he actually managed to move such huge pieces of masonry without the help of a crane or scaffold. All we know is that he used a simple system of pulleys that we know to be incapable of holding that much weights! The only tool that Edward spoke of using was a "perpetual motion holder."- Lord knows what the heck that is....
I've attached 3 documentry clips to show you all the miracle that this man has single handedly constructed for a woman who never loved him and rejected him because he was too old.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Dark Tower at Buona Vista, Part 2
Typical of De Maitre, whose cynical view of the world exposes the dark machinations and miserable failures of our education system.
De Maitre identified three issues in our education system:
One, the obsession with grades,
Two, the failure of policy,
And three, the over-valuation of certain subjects.
But looking at the issue a little deeper, one realises that there is more to it.
First, the obsession with grades.
Who started it? Parents, or the state? Thinking about the dynamics between parents and the state in this respect led me to realise that there is a two-way relationship.
Parents are obsessed with grades, so they force their children to take up certain courses in school, or certain schools, leading the government to react by regulating the terms of entry, making it even more valuable in the eyes of parents.
Alternatively, the state is obsessed with grades, so it creates cut-off points for certain courses or certain schools, creating the impetus for parents to push their children to meet those grades.
And the reasons? One word: Meritocracy.
As I talked about in a previous post, What is Intelligence?, I mentioned the problem of meritocracy: How does one measure ability and effort? Because of this difficulty, the state relies on grades and certification as methods of determining ability and effort. Hence the importance of grades in our society today, because that’s what the state, and consequently society as a whole recognises as “success.”
Second, the failure of policy.
I’ll talk about three subjects that best exemplify the miserable failure of our education system. Actually, De Maitre has talked about them too, but here I have a different way of looking at it.
The subjects are: Project Work (PW), Social Studies (SS), and History.
Starting with PW.
Ask any JC student, and he/she will say “PW sucks”. But why does PW suck?
De Maitre talked about the irrelevance of PW in actual university work. I agree. Group work in university is very different from PW.
I think there are three main reasons why PW has failed to meet its objective.
First, students spend a disproportionate amount of time in learning those so-called “critical thinking skills” in “PW lectures”, rather than to internalise them in the process of doing that project. The critical thinking skills that are so important in a university cannot be simply taught, they have to be experienced. As many others have criticised, it is “the absurdity of teaching us how to think”. In other words, PW is a waste of time.
Second, university work is so different. There is the regular term paper, group presentations, and ultimately, the thesis at Honours year. What is important for PW to do is to internalise students on the processes and skills behind doing these assignments, which unfortunately, the PW system doesn’t.
Let’s look at what’s missing. For any assignment at university level, there has to be research done. Research has to be done for the term paper, for the group presentation, and a hell lot of research for the thesis.
What PW fails to do is to teach students how really to do research. Students waste time sourcing information they don’t need, just piling them in the bibliography for it to look impressive, students cite references, but have no idea the principles behind citation, and worse, students can’t tell the difference between what is and what isn’t plagiarism right until university itself.
So if PW IS SUPPOSED to prepare students for university, what kind of a job is it doing?
Of course, it is important to consider the differences in methodology towards PW between schools, but my point is, the skills that are so important for PW have not been properly inculcated.
The third reason is that PW can take so much less time than it actually does now. The situation now is this: up to five students spend close to one year (the 2nd year of JC) on a project question, requiring them to come up with both an oral presentation and written report. But this begs the question: why are students spending so much time?
This was how long I took in university:
A group presentation: one week.
Term paper: three days.
Of course one might retort, “But you are already a university student! You already know all the skills!”
My answer to that is simple. I never used any so-called “skills” taught by PW in the first place.
Group work is about getting people together, discussing the issue, dividing the work evenly amongst the group members, and putting up a good performance during the actual presentation. How much time should that take? How much time does it take to meet up to talk about the question allocated or chosen? How much time will it take if one divides the work evenly? How much time does it take to prepare the presentation slides?
Ultimately, why are students spending months on something that can be done in weeks or even days?
Moving on to SS.
SS is propaganda. For fairness, I would say, “to a certain extent.” Not to be politically correct or whatever, SS does have some value. At least, the topics are meaningful. Governance, Racial harmony...
What I HATE about SS is that is so one-sided. To truly understand our society, we have to study it objectively, highlighting both the good things and the problems that face our society. There’s no politics or the so-called OB markers involved, just an objective, truthful account of our society.
It is NUS’s way of teaching Singapore that I feel should be the way for SS to be. In NUS, there are Singapore Studies modules, where we well, learn about Singapore. I took a course on Singapore politics (yes, politics) and I had a very good experience. It was far from a process of “government indoctrination”; there is constructive critique as well. If our society is to improve, this is the way to go.
As for De Maitre’s idea of replacing SS with sociology, I am personally supportive of that idea. This is because the sociological perspective allows us to challenge common sense assumptions and see problems in our society to be improved. Either way, it’s more fun.
To be continued...
De Maitre identified three issues in our education system:
One, the obsession with grades,
Two, the failure of policy,
And three, the over-valuation of certain subjects.
But looking at the issue a little deeper, one realises that there is more to it.
First, the obsession with grades.
Who started it? Parents, or the state? Thinking about the dynamics between parents and the state in this respect led me to realise that there is a two-way relationship.
Parents are obsessed with grades, so they force their children to take up certain courses in school, or certain schools, leading the government to react by regulating the terms of entry, making it even more valuable in the eyes of parents.
Alternatively, the state is obsessed with grades, so it creates cut-off points for certain courses or certain schools, creating the impetus for parents to push their children to meet those grades.
And the reasons? One word: Meritocracy.
As I talked about in a previous post, What is Intelligence?, I mentioned the problem of meritocracy: How does one measure ability and effort? Because of this difficulty, the state relies on grades and certification as methods of determining ability and effort. Hence the importance of grades in our society today, because that’s what the state, and consequently society as a whole recognises as “success.”
Second, the failure of policy.
I’ll talk about three subjects that best exemplify the miserable failure of our education system. Actually, De Maitre has talked about them too, but here I have a different way of looking at it.
The subjects are: Project Work (PW), Social Studies (SS), and History.
Starting with PW.
Ask any JC student, and he/she will say “PW sucks”. But why does PW suck?
De Maitre talked about the irrelevance of PW in actual university work. I agree. Group work in university is very different from PW.
I think there are three main reasons why PW has failed to meet its objective.
First, students spend a disproportionate amount of time in learning those so-called “critical thinking skills” in “PW lectures”, rather than to internalise them in the process of doing that project. The critical thinking skills that are so important in a university cannot be simply taught, they have to be experienced. As many others have criticised, it is “the absurdity of teaching us how to think”. In other words, PW is a waste of time.
Second, university work is so different. There is the regular term paper, group presentations, and ultimately, the thesis at Honours year. What is important for PW to do is to internalise students on the processes and skills behind doing these assignments, which unfortunately, the PW system doesn’t.
Let’s look at what’s missing. For any assignment at university level, there has to be research done. Research has to be done for the term paper, for the group presentation, and a hell lot of research for the thesis.
What PW fails to do is to teach students how really to do research. Students waste time sourcing information they don’t need, just piling them in the bibliography for it to look impressive, students cite references, but have no idea the principles behind citation, and worse, students can’t tell the difference between what is and what isn’t plagiarism right until university itself.
So if PW IS SUPPOSED to prepare students for university, what kind of a job is it doing?
Of course, it is important to consider the differences in methodology towards PW between schools, but my point is, the skills that are so important for PW have not been properly inculcated.
The third reason is that PW can take so much less time than it actually does now. The situation now is this: up to five students spend close to one year (the 2nd year of JC) on a project question, requiring them to come up with both an oral presentation and written report. But this begs the question: why are students spending so much time?
This was how long I took in university:
A group presentation: one week.
Term paper: three days.
Of course one might retort, “But you are already a university student! You already know all the skills!”
My answer to that is simple. I never used any so-called “skills” taught by PW in the first place.
Group work is about getting people together, discussing the issue, dividing the work evenly amongst the group members, and putting up a good performance during the actual presentation. How much time should that take? How much time does it take to meet up to talk about the question allocated or chosen? How much time will it take if one divides the work evenly? How much time does it take to prepare the presentation slides?
Ultimately, why are students spending months on something that can be done in weeks or even days?
Moving on to SS.
SS is propaganda. For fairness, I would say, “to a certain extent.” Not to be politically correct or whatever, SS does have some value. At least, the topics are meaningful. Governance, Racial harmony...
What I HATE about SS is that is so one-sided. To truly understand our society, we have to study it objectively, highlighting both the good things and the problems that face our society. There’s no politics or the so-called OB markers involved, just an objective, truthful account of our society.
It is NUS’s way of teaching Singapore that I feel should be the way for SS to be. In NUS, there are Singapore Studies modules, where we well, learn about Singapore. I took a course on Singapore politics (yes, politics) and I had a very good experience. It was far from a process of “government indoctrination”; there is constructive critique as well. If our society is to improve, this is the way to go.
As for De Maitre’s idea of replacing SS with sociology, I am personally supportive of that idea. This is because the sociological perspective allows us to challenge common sense assumptions and see problems in our society to be improved. Either way, it’s more fun.
To be continued...
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Dark Tower at Buona Vista
That is the most fitting tribute to the MOE HQ that I have ever encountered in my life. We have the world's "best education system". But all I can say is *cough* bullshit. We have all the good grades in the world but the worst ability when it comes to applying what we have learnt. We have all the best plans in mind but the most disastrous outcomes thanks to confound variables such as parents and social attitudes.
We have been taught the value of studying hard, the pursuit of material success, to the point of stupidity. We have created a paper chase society where the more certificates you have, the better. The longer your resume, the more impressive you are. My point is- certificates do not reflect your true capabilities.
Our education system is conspicuously lacks one major element- emotion. Students and teachers are nothing but cogs in our grand education system. Teachers are bogged down by meaningless administrative duties (makes you wonder what the admin staff are for). Students are made to pay for the mistakes they made during a moment of playfulness. Students are not taught the joy of studying, the joy of expressing their thoughts in essays, the humility that comes with knowledge. In Singapore, one can be a millionaire just by starting a tuition agency.
Parents in their kiasu pursuit of guaranteeing their children’s grades and certification, sign their children up for endless sessions of tuition, swimming lessons, piano lessons, violin lessons, golf lessons, etc. All in the name of a well rounded education, without realizing the level of stress and emotional neglect imposed on their children. Some children grow up thinking that parental love is conditional, depending on their grades and achievements in school. That’s plain sad, some children commit suicide or turn deviant and completely reject their parents on the basis “since I can’t study, they won’t bother or love me anymore”.
The blind pursuit of A grades by students and teachers (whose pay and promotional prospects are dependent on their students’ grades) has resulted in a culture of rote learning and the death of creativity. Students are spoon-fed what they need to know in order to score during exams, questions beyond that are rarely entertained. Learning has become a chore, where everyone thinks the same. There is joy in being creative or proposing alternate points of view because it does not guarantee a good grade. Just look at the way people memorize sample essays. As a marker, I would definitely prefer creative answers over structured ones.
Those who have gotten their certification on the other hand, normally end up big headed. They think they own the world and they are guaranteed the best job with the best pay, only to realize that in the working world, seniority and experience matters more. Those working the HR department can tell you that Singapore graduates want obscenely high pays, company cars, business class tickets, and etc. privileges only given to senior managers with at least 10 years of experience. Many graduates enter the working world with a “holier than thou” attitude and they like to think they know better. Knowledge is power, humility is wisdom.
The ruling elite from the “dark tower” seem to be implementing a lot of useless policies recently. I think Social studies, Project work (PW) and Sex Education are the classic examples of waste of time. Social studies should be about basic sociology, not propaganda promoting Singapore’s successful policy implementation in the social, military and economic spheres. Ask any university student and they will tell you what a tragic parody PW is. It doesn’t teach you any precious writing skill that you will need in university because of it crappy outlines. In University, you’ll encounter MANY types of bibliography- MLA, APA, ASA, AMA, etc. And the research done is a lot more concise and presented in a different format. Till today, I have no idea what the hell are they looking out for. Sex education is quite a joke to me because it focuses mainly on physical abstinence and protection, but it doesn’t focus on the emotional protection. The teenage years are fraught with emotional issues, where many teenagers think sex is the universe. Ask many teenage girls, they think sex is a means of obtaining love, a mentality that many will maintain until they mature. I think teaching students how to build healthy relationships is much better than knocking into them the importance of using contraceptives.
Somehow our education system is also a primary reason for the “death of dreams”. I have met many playful people who chose play over work at one point in their academic lives. Because of that, they are consigned to EM3, normal tech, etc and labeled as stupid for the rest of their lives. Although I use the term stupid liberally on everyone (including myself), I don’t really believe in it because people may be deficit in one area but superb in another. For example, I’m a complete idiot when it comes to music and dance. I have probably 50 or 60 left and right feet and malfunctioning brain when it comes to following beats.
These people are condemned to learn boring technical skills without hope of clawing their way back into the express level. Ok, they can climb back, but it’s a slow hard climb back up. Many give up and spend their lives hating studying. What they don’t realize is school isn’t the start and end of studying- there is a world of knowledge outside the textbook. Learning doesn’t end in school; it is truly a life-long experience. MOE needs to change its stance- success if life should not be limited to certification. We also need to look deep into ourselves and change our social perception regarding people and their jobs. I disagree with the social perception that construction workers and street cleaners are lousy jobs. To me, they are hard working enough to find an honest job to earn a living. The people that I look down on are those who cannot hold onto a stable job just because they find the job too tough or the pay too little, and go around borrowing money from their friends and relatives as a result.
We have been taught the value of studying hard, the pursuit of material success, to the point of stupidity. We have created a paper chase society where the more certificates you have, the better. The longer your resume, the more impressive you are. My point is- certificates do not reflect your true capabilities.
Our education system is conspicuously lacks one major element- emotion. Students and teachers are nothing but cogs in our grand education system. Teachers are bogged down by meaningless administrative duties (makes you wonder what the admin staff are for). Students are made to pay for the mistakes they made during a moment of playfulness. Students are not taught the joy of studying, the joy of expressing their thoughts in essays, the humility that comes with knowledge. In Singapore, one can be a millionaire just by starting a tuition agency.
Parents in their kiasu pursuit of guaranteeing their children’s grades and certification, sign their children up for endless sessions of tuition, swimming lessons, piano lessons, violin lessons, golf lessons, etc. All in the name of a well rounded education, without realizing the level of stress and emotional neglect imposed on their children. Some children grow up thinking that parental love is conditional, depending on their grades and achievements in school. That’s plain sad, some children commit suicide or turn deviant and completely reject their parents on the basis “since I can’t study, they won’t bother or love me anymore”.
The blind pursuit of A grades by students and teachers (whose pay and promotional prospects are dependent on their students’ grades) has resulted in a culture of rote learning and the death of creativity. Students are spoon-fed what they need to know in order to score during exams, questions beyond that are rarely entertained. Learning has become a chore, where everyone thinks the same. There is joy in being creative or proposing alternate points of view because it does not guarantee a good grade. Just look at the way people memorize sample essays. As a marker, I would definitely prefer creative answers over structured ones.
Those who have gotten their certification on the other hand, normally end up big headed. They think they own the world and they are guaranteed the best job with the best pay, only to realize that in the working world, seniority and experience matters more. Those working the HR department can tell you that Singapore graduates want obscenely high pays, company cars, business class tickets, and etc. privileges only given to senior managers with at least 10 years of experience. Many graduates enter the working world with a “holier than thou” attitude and they like to think they know better. Knowledge is power, humility is wisdom.
The ruling elite from the “dark tower” seem to be implementing a lot of useless policies recently. I think Social studies, Project work (PW) and Sex Education are the classic examples of waste of time. Social studies should be about basic sociology, not propaganda promoting Singapore’s successful policy implementation in the social, military and economic spheres. Ask any university student and they will tell you what a tragic parody PW is. It doesn’t teach you any precious writing skill that you will need in university because of it crappy outlines. In University, you’ll encounter MANY types of bibliography- MLA, APA, ASA, AMA, etc. And the research done is a lot more concise and presented in a different format. Till today, I have no idea what the hell are they looking out for. Sex education is quite a joke to me because it focuses mainly on physical abstinence and protection, but it doesn’t focus on the emotional protection. The teenage years are fraught with emotional issues, where many teenagers think sex is the universe. Ask many teenage girls, they think sex is a means of obtaining love, a mentality that many will maintain until they mature. I think teaching students how to build healthy relationships is much better than knocking into them the importance of using contraceptives.
Somehow our education system is also a primary reason for the “death of dreams”. I have met many playful people who chose play over work at one point in their academic lives. Because of that, they are consigned to EM3, normal tech, etc and labeled as stupid for the rest of their lives. Although I use the term stupid liberally on everyone (including myself), I don’t really believe in it because people may be deficit in one area but superb in another. For example, I’m a complete idiot when it comes to music and dance. I have probably 50 or 60 left and right feet and malfunctioning brain when it comes to following beats.
These people are condemned to learn boring technical skills without hope of clawing their way back into the express level. Ok, they can climb back, but it’s a slow hard climb back up. Many give up and spend their lives hating studying. What they don’t realize is school isn’t the start and end of studying- there is a world of knowledge outside the textbook. Learning doesn’t end in school; it is truly a life-long experience. MOE needs to change its stance- success if life should not be limited to certification. We also need to look deep into ourselves and change our social perception regarding people and their jobs. I disagree with the social perception that construction workers and street cleaners are lousy jobs. To me, they are hard working enough to find an honest job to earn a living. The people that I look down on are those who cannot hold onto a stable job just because they find the job too tough or the pay too little, and go around borrowing money from their friends and relatives as a result.
All the reason to SWEAR, in moderation of course
Scientists have discovered that uttering swear words can help to lessen the feeling of physical pain.
Dr Richard Stephens, who conducted the study at the university's school of psychology, believes it may explain why swearing is still common place in languages around the world.
He suggests that swearing could have evolved as a way of raising aggression levels and reducing the feeling of pain to allow our ancestors to flee or fight back when attacked by predators.
He said: "We think it could be part of the flight or fight response. In the volunteers who swore, we also found they had an elevated heart rate, so it could be increasing their aggression levels.
"Increased aggression has been shown to reduce people's sensitivity to pain, so it could be swearing is helping this process."
Taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5803300/Swearing-can-reduce-the-feeling-of-pain.html
I always had this stand- "swear when you need to but nothing more". A lot of youngsters think there's nothing wrong with swearing and that swearing is cool. I think it's just plain ugly and crude. I'm willing to forgive rabid swearing in the event that you stub your toe or got run over by an errant cyclist but I'm completely unprepared to forgive people who use "F**k* in every sentence they utter.
The following video is a rough background swearing/cursing, etc.
"What Is" Series- What is Bullying?
After I came home last night, I checked my blog and AALT2’s chatbox and surprise surprise, I saw Jeannie’s renewed threats and her god sister (Qitong)’s claims that I have bullied Jeannie. I didn’t know calling Jeannie stupid on the basis of spelling my name wrongly 3x was tantamount to bullying. If anything, I was wondering how on earth the pair of them can achieve that many spelling errors- “irratating”, “distuarb” (that appeared 2x, so I can assume that’s how she thinks disturb should be spelt) and “prossitude”. I pointed that out, called her stupid for her spelling errors and bimbotic attitude- so now I’m a bully.
All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHA. =P I always had a morbid sense of humor that is coated with a thick layer of mockery and cynicism. It is ironic how it can become a crime in the eyes of a bully with a huge ego who thinks everyone is jealous of her beauty. I think there’s nothing to admire about a bimbo who can’t spell and speak coherently. So today, I’ve decided to write a post about bullying.
Basically, it defines bullying as “saying and doing things to hurt a person. It is usually done on purpose and repeatedly.” The video goes on to describe the types of bullying- relational, verbal and physical; the results of continuing to be a bully- friendless and getting scolding; the possible reactions of the victim- freeze in fear, fight back or walk away and complain to the teacher; the types of bystanders behavior- ignore the bullying, encourage the bully, support the victim or avenge the bully.
I think this is a very interesting video, but it is too optimistic and stereotypical for my liking. The bully is type casted as the typical “kiam-pah-bin” Ah Beng with his arrogantly, sour face and standing collar. And the victim is the typical village nerd… The points they highlighted were good, but they didn’t have to explore deeper expects of bullying. I’ll be highlighting some in my post.
Anyone who has an edge over others in terms of money, influence or knowledge can be said to be bullies. I would take it further through the exploration of a bully's desire for control and self gratification, and the malicious consequences.
This wasn’t highlighted much upon- most bullies have insecure personalities; they have to belittle others to feel good. Unfortunately, they belittle others the wrong way- for example, they call other people stupid when they are more stupid than others. And most bullies run in a pack- “birds of a feather flock together”. They need emotional and physical support in their actions, especially when they are at the losing end. They can only summon the courage to bully others with the backing of others. Ironically, when someone stands up to them, they go around crying for help claiming they have been bullied. Well, all I can say is, don’t look for trouble and complain when trouble finds you.
Bullies need to have control to feel good- people must scrape and bow before them. Once you demonstrate that you are not afraid of them, they normally react by ignoring you and saying stuff like you aren’t worthy of their attention. Alternatively, they switch tactics and embark on greater attempts to discredit you (relational bullying). I will be focusing a lot more on relational bullying because it is more common in today’s context than physical bullying and its effects are a lot deeper and long lasting. In the video, the example used was “don’t be friends with him!” In life, it goes way beyond that. As mentioned earlier, another form of relational bullying can come in the form is discrediting you. That means they go about spreading malicious tales about you. I.e. you are gay/lesbian, a gossip, a backstabber, a liar, a promiscuous bitch, etc. In the cyber world, you get criticisms about how fat and ugly you are if you post up your pictures and an “enemy” happens to see it.
In the working world, relational bullying is so prominent that it’s a norm. I’m sure you have heard of many stories of people resigning from their jobs because of bosses or colleagues from hell. These are due to the prevalence of certain factors.
a.EGO - Big ego means greater need to be a bully to feel good and powerful.
b.AMBITION – Big ambition means climbing up the corporate ladder FAST. If you don’t have the means to achieve promotions the “natural” way, backstabbing and sabotage is required.
c.BITCHY COLLEAGUES – “When in Rome, do as Romans do” you need to be a bigger bully than others to survive.
d.AGGRESSION – Some people are just plain aggressive, they are just hostile to everyone so that they feel superior to others.
Bullying has the most severe impact on people’s lives especially during their teenage years. This is the critical point in everyone’s life where there are many self doubts and insecurities regarding their looks. Many have committed suicide due to the unrelenting pressure exerted by bullies and themselves. To me, it takes two hands to clap- bullies get tired once they realize they have no hold over you.
Will I feel guilty if Jeannie jumps of the nearest HDB flat? Nah, I don’t have sympathy for weak people. If fact, I admire courage. Look at Yu-Kym, she got nominated for most insightful blog awards. I like her because she has the courage to stick to her guns. She openly posts pictures of herself on her blog and people just avidly criticize her for being a slut, how old she is, how ugly she is, what a copy cat she is, etc. Instead of being upset and shutting down her blog, she stands firm and continues to post her thoughts. I think she is a fantastic blog that all adolescents should read for the purpose of sex education and BGR experiences. I particularly like this proverb that she pasted on her blog: “Pigs are afraid of becoming fat, people are afraid of becoming popular."- meaning a healthy pig will be killed and eaten; a successful person will be a target. At least she has something to be successful about. She doesn’t brag; she relates that’s the reason why I will support her anytime over other promiscuous girls. It’s the ATTITUDE, something that the Ah Lians and Ah Bengs will never understand.
So back to the question- do I consider myself a bully? Maybe, what's your opinion guys? =) I insult everyone equally and fairly (including myself). I’m way too cynical I guess. No one is ever perfect enough for me to call pretty/beautiful- having a pretty face doesn’t mean that your fart will smell of roses nor does it mean you have the personality or intelligence to match your looks. Criticism should never be classified as bullying, especially when it is based on facts. I find it fitting that the real bullies in life find their own bullies in cyberspace, call it Karma if you will.
[Read more about relational bullying here]
All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHA. =P I always had a morbid sense of humor that is coated with a thick layer of mockery and cynicism. It is ironic how it can become a crime in the eyes of a bully with a huge ego who thinks everyone is jealous of her beauty. I think there’s nothing to admire about a bimbo who can’t spell and speak coherently. So today, I’ve decided to write a post about bullying.
Basically, it defines bullying as “saying and doing things to hurt a person. It is usually done on purpose and repeatedly.” The video goes on to describe the types of bullying- relational, verbal and physical; the results of continuing to be a bully- friendless and getting scolding; the possible reactions of the victim- freeze in fear, fight back or walk away and complain to the teacher; the types of bystanders behavior- ignore the bullying, encourage the bully, support the victim or avenge the bully.
I think this is a very interesting video, but it is too optimistic and stereotypical for my liking. The bully is type casted as the typical “kiam-pah-bin” Ah Beng with his arrogantly, sour face and standing collar. And the victim is the typical village nerd… The points they highlighted were good, but they didn’t have to explore deeper expects of bullying. I’ll be highlighting some in my post.
Anyone who has an edge over others in terms of money, influence or knowledge can be said to be bullies. I would take it further through the exploration of a bully's desire for control and self gratification, and the malicious consequences.
This wasn’t highlighted much upon- most bullies have insecure personalities; they have to belittle others to feel good. Unfortunately, they belittle others the wrong way- for example, they call other people stupid when they are more stupid than others. And most bullies run in a pack- “birds of a feather flock together”. They need emotional and physical support in their actions, especially when they are at the losing end. They can only summon the courage to bully others with the backing of others. Ironically, when someone stands up to them, they go around crying for help claiming they have been bullied. Well, all I can say is, don’t look for trouble and complain when trouble finds you.
Bullies need to have control to feel good- people must scrape and bow before them. Once you demonstrate that you are not afraid of them, they normally react by ignoring you and saying stuff like you aren’t worthy of their attention. Alternatively, they switch tactics and embark on greater attempts to discredit you (relational bullying). I will be focusing a lot more on relational bullying because it is more common in today’s context than physical bullying and its effects are a lot deeper and long lasting. In the video, the example used was “don’t be friends with him!” In life, it goes way beyond that. As mentioned earlier, another form of relational bullying can come in the form is discrediting you. That means they go about spreading malicious tales about you. I.e. you are gay/lesbian, a gossip, a backstabber, a liar, a promiscuous bitch, etc. In the cyber world, you get criticisms about how fat and ugly you are if you post up your pictures and an “enemy” happens to see it.
In the working world, relational bullying is so prominent that it’s a norm. I’m sure you have heard of many stories of people resigning from their jobs because of bosses or colleagues from hell. These are due to the prevalence of certain factors.
a.EGO - Big ego means greater need to be a bully to feel good and powerful.
b.AMBITION – Big ambition means climbing up the corporate ladder FAST. If you don’t have the means to achieve promotions the “natural” way, backstabbing and sabotage is required.
c.BITCHY COLLEAGUES – “When in Rome, do as Romans do” you need to be a bigger bully than others to survive.
d.AGGRESSION – Some people are just plain aggressive, they are just hostile to everyone so that they feel superior to others.
Bullying has the most severe impact on people’s lives especially during their teenage years. This is the critical point in everyone’s life where there are many self doubts and insecurities regarding their looks. Many have committed suicide due to the unrelenting pressure exerted by bullies and themselves. To me, it takes two hands to clap- bullies get tired once they realize they have no hold over you.
Will I feel guilty if Jeannie jumps of the nearest HDB flat? Nah, I don’t have sympathy for weak people. If fact, I admire courage. Look at Yu-Kym, she got nominated for most insightful blog awards. I like her because she has the courage to stick to her guns. She openly posts pictures of herself on her blog and people just avidly criticize her for being a slut, how old she is, how ugly she is, what a copy cat she is, etc. Instead of being upset and shutting down her blog, she stands firm and continues to post her thoughts. I think she is a fantastic blog that all adolescents should read for the purpose of sex education and BGR experiences. I particularly like this proverb that she pasted on her blog: “Pigs are afraid of becoming fat, people are afraid of becoming popular."- meaning a healthy pig will be killed and eaten; a successful person will be a target. At least she has something to be successful about. She doesn’t brag; she relates that’s the reason why I will support her anytime over other promiscuous girls. It’s the ATTITUDE, something that the Ah Lians and Ah Bengs will never understand.
So back to the question- do I consider myself a bully? Maybe, what's your opinion guys? =) I insult everyone equally and fairly (including myself). I’m way too cynical I guess. No one is ever perfect enough for me to call pretty/beautiful- having a pretty face doesn’t mean that your fart will smell of roses nor does it mean you have the personality or intelligence to match your looks. Criticism should never be classified as bullying, especially when it is based on facts. I find it fitting that the real bullies in life find their own bullies in cyberspace, call it Karma if you will.
[Read more about relational bullying here]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Crisis of Identity in Singapore
Ok, this is the last post before my exams, after which I’ll be in hiatus for a couple of days.
Hopefully things will liven up once again when De Maitre is back.
Anyways, this post of mine is relating to an issue that has been talked about for many, many years, in different forms and in different contexts, but today I’ll talk about it from a slightly new perspective.
I am no soccer fan, and till today I still struggle to understand how this sport, which involves 20 (less the goalkeepers)people running around after a ball, can be more influential in certain ways than governments, than nationalities, than even religion.
But reading the newspaper about how our national soccer team was thrashed 5-0 by Liverpool FC last Sunday, to the delight of Singaporean Liverpool fans, led me to once again look at this issue, and from there, I thought some new thoughts of my own.
It is very ironic to learn that the national team, playing on THEIR home ground, was being treated as the away team. When Liverpool scored goals, it was Singaporeans who cheered. When a Lion was given the yellow card, it was Singaporeans who cheered.
It was at that moment I realised, the forty years of Singapore’s national identity quest has been put to nought by this single event.
What on this planet happened?
I think it is the transnational nature of soccer. Soccer is a game that is distinctively international in nature. The teams have a multi-national composition. The supporters come from all over the world. The sport itself appeals to many nationalities. It’s little wonder that the World Cup is the most watched sporting event.
Given this multinational nature, supporters back teams, not nationalities. This is when sport can unite, but also divide people.
But Singapore is hardly the examplar of the divisive qualities of sport. Look at other countries. Riots, fighting amongst fans, are just cases of how extreme things can become, when passion can descend rapidly into violence. When that happens, countrymen are treated as aliens, fellow citizens treated as enemies.
But looking a little further, I think it also has to do with the Singaporean psyche. Singaporeans have this peculiar fault: That foreign is better.
Singaporeans have little idea of local brands beyond SIA, Creative and Tiger. To worsen the problem, Singaporeans have little faith on local brands that are new, always thinking that they are not comparable to foreign brands.
The situation is changing, of course. Many Singaporean designers and artists have made it overseas, and have been relatively successful, and are recognised within their own fields. But the problem is HERE.
If Singaporeans don’t have faith and confidence in our people, who will?
The point is there is no guarantee that every venture will be successful. But if the opportunity and support is not given simply because of that risk, then the chances of success are nil. More importantly, even the successful brands didn’t always start out successful; it was the process of exposure and gaining experience that they could be what they are today.
It’s our culture’s obsession with instant success that has resulted in this predicament, where we don’t support our own brands, where we don’t support our soccer teams, where many of us foolishly think only a course on law or engineering will make a good career.
Nevertheless, I am not encouraging the economic nationalism or economic patriotism that you see in other countries, where people make do with sub-standard stuff. Quality comes with competition. Improvement comes with competition. I only ask for the freedom of opportunity, and for Singaporeans to give their support to our own people.
Ultimately, if people lament foreign talent, the best way to deal with it is to prove that we have something of our own to be proud of.
Liverpool never walks alone. They certainly didn’t on that match last Sunday. But many Singaporeans, those young aspiring individuals who want to carve out a career of their own, found themselves very, very alone.
Hopefully things will liven up once again when De Maitre is back.
Anyways, this post of mine is relating to an issue that has been talked about for many, many years, in different forms and in different contexts, but today I’ll talk about it from a slightly new perspective.
I am no soccer fan, and till today I still struggle to understand how this sport, which involves 20 (less the goalkeepers)people running around after a ball, can be more influential in certain ways than governments, than nationalities, than even religion.
But reading the newspaper about how our national soccer team was thrashed 5-0 by Liverpool FC last Sunday, to the delight of Singaporean Liverpool fans, led me to once again look at this issue, and from there, I thought some new thoughts of my own.
It is very ironic to learn that the national team, playing on THEIR home ground, was being treated as the away team. When Liverpool scored goals, it was Singaporeans who cheered. When a Lion was given the yellow card, it was Singaporeans who cheered.
It was at that moment I realised, the forty years of Singapore’s national identity quest has been put to nought by this single event.
What on this planet happened?
I think it is the transnational nature of soccer. Soccer is a game that is distinctively international in nature. The teams have a multi-national composition. The supporters come from all over the world. The sport itself appeals to many nationalities. It’s little wonder that the World Cup is the most watched sporting event.
Given this multinational nature, supporters back teams, not nationalities. This is when sport can unite, but also divide people.
But Singapore is hardly the examplar of the divisive qualities of sport. Look at other countries. Riots, fighting amongst fans, are just cases of how extreme things can become, when passion can descend rapidly into violence. When that happens, countrymen are treated as aliens, fellow citizens treated as enemies.
But looking a little further, I think it also has to do with the Singaporean psyche. Singaporeans have this peculiar fault: That foreign is better.
Singaporeans have little idea of local brands beyond SIA, Creative and Tiger. To worsen the problem, Singaporeans have little faith on local brands that are new, always thinking that they are not comparable to foreign brands.
The situation is changing, of course. Many Singaporean designers and artists have made it overseas, and have been relatively successful, and are recognised within their own fields. But the problem is HERE.
If Singaporeans don’t have faith and confidence in our people, who will?
The point is there is no guarantee that every venture will be successful. But if the opportunity and support is not given simply because of that risk, then the chances of success are nil. More importantly, even the successful brands didn’t always start out successful; it was the process of exposure and gaining experience that they could be what they are today.
It’s our culture’s obsession with instant success that has resulted in this predicament, where we don’t support our own brands, where we don’t support our soccer teams, where many of us foolishly think only a course on law or engineering will make a good career.
Nevertheless, I am not encouraging the economic nationalism or economic patriotism that you see in other countries, where people make do with sub-standard stuff. Quality comes with competition. Improvement comes with competition. I only ask for the freedom of opportunity, and for Singaporeans to give their support to our own people.
Ultimately, if people lament foreign talent, the best way to deal with it is to prove that we have something of our own to be proud of.
Liverpool never walks alone. They certainly didn’t on that match last Sunday. But many Singaporeans, those young aspiring individuals who want to carve out a career of their own, found themselves very, very alone.
Monday, July 27, 2009
On Tourism
While one might take for granted that it’s the people in the tourist industry that are assessed for their service quality, it’s interesting to note that tourists are also being assessed for their friendliness and conduct.
A report in the Channel NewsAsia webpage reports that “Pushy French are world's worst tourists”.
This was the result of a study of the global hotel industry, evaluating tourists from different nationalities based on nine criteria from their politeness to their willingness to tip.
Turns out, Japanese tourists were top for the third year in a row, for their tidiness, politeness and discretion. French tourists, as mentioned in the title, turned out to be the worst, for being the least generous on tipping, as well as being most unwilling to pick up the local language.
So, what does this report tell us about tourists in general?
First, I think the study has its inaccuracies. The evaluation of tourists based on politeness is fair enough, since it gives a good indication of the civility of these tourists, but to judge tourists based on their ability to tip is being somewhat expedient.
Second, it can be somewhat stereotypical to look at tourists by the country they came from.
Nevertheless, this study does break many of the perceptions that people have about tourists. Americans are the most generous in tipping, but also turn out to be the loudest, the rudest, and the most badly dressed, while the British, thought to be “beer-guzzling hordes”, emerged second in the study.
That being ranked low in such a study can show some things about that country, and tourism in general:
First, the French are truly proud of their language. That’s probably why they'll use French even when being pushy: “L’etat c’est moi!” (I am the State!)
Second, the problem of declining service in many countries (including our own) cannot be interpreted one-sidedly as a manner of poor service quality. The poor response and rapport from the tourists also matter. After all, a travel experience can only be fun if the tourist was willing to play his/her part in the experience.
Third, it’s a lesson for us as tourists too. We are watching the service quality of the service providers, but we are also being watched as tourists too.
So when we are treated badly as tourists in other countries, think about whether the service provider was bad, or we have had a very bad reputation as tourists?
A report in the Channel NewsAsia webpage reports that “Pushy French are world's worst tourists”.
This was the result of a study of the global hotel industry, evaluating tourists from different nationalities based on nine criteria from their politeness to their willingness to tip.
Turns out, Japanese tourists were top for the third year in a row, for their tidiness, politeness and discretion. French tourists, as mentioned in the title, turned out to be the worst, for being the least generous on tipping, as well as being most unwilling to pick up the local language.
So, what does this report tell us about tourists in general?
First, I think the study has its inaccuracies. The evaluation of tourists based on politeness is fair enough, since it gives a good indication of the civility of these tourists, but to judge tourists based on their ability to tip is being somewhat expedient.
Second, it can be somewhat stereotypical to look at tourists by the country they came from.
Nevertheless, this study does break many of the perceptions that people have about tourists. Americans are the most generous in tipping, but also turn out to be the loudest, the rudest, and the most badly dressed, while the British, thought to be “beer-guzzling hordes”, emerged second in the study.
That being ranked low in such a study can show some things about that country, and tourism in general:
First, the French are truly proud of their language. That’s probably why they'll use French even when being pushy: “L’etat c’est moi!” (I am the State!)
Second, the problem of declining service in many countries (including our own) cannot be interpreted one-sidedly as a manner of poor service quality. The poor response and rapport from the tourists also matter. After all, a travel experience can only be fun if the tourist was willing to play his/her part in the experience.
Third, it’s a lesson for us as tourists too. We are watching the service quality of the service providers, but we are also being watched as tourists too.
So when we are treated badly as tourists in other countries, think about whether the service provider was bad, or we have had a very bad reputation as tourists?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A question for the Patriachal Social Model
I just have this burning question- "Why are family names only passed down through sons?"
This is applicable to almost every society in the world. Well, technically, you can never doubt the mother of a child, but you can certainly doubt who the father is... So if the child's genes are in doubt, why should surnames be passed down from the father's side instead of the mother's side of the family?
Anthropologist would typically say that it has to do with the social organisation-Pastoral and Agrarian societies tend to be paternalistic because males do the hard work but Horticultural societies tend to be maternal.
That bullshit aside, surnames are meant to identify the offspring as members from a certain family. Only the women can assure that their children carry half of the family genes, not the men. ^^ So is it time to revise that antiquated system and redraw the family tree based on maternal links?
This is applicable to almost every society in the world. Well, technically, you can never doubt the mother of a child, but you can certainly doubt who the father is... So if the child's genes are in doubt, why should surnames be passed down from the father's side instead of the mother's side of the family?
Anthropologist would typically say that it has to do with the social organisation-Pastoral and Agrarian societies tend to be paternalistic because males do the hard work but Horticultural societies tend to be maternal.
That bullshit aside, surnames are meant to identify the offspring as members from a certain family. Only the women can assure that their children carry half of the family genes, not the men. ^^ So is it time to revise that antiquated system and redraw the family tree based on maternal links?
When Hardware isn’t Everything
Today I’ll do a military post. I was inspired by the recent vote cast by the US Senate against the acquisition of an additional seven F-22 raptor fighter jets as part of a defence authorisation bill.
This was in support of President Obama’s desire to reduce wastage in defence spending, and focusing on fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than military hardware.
In his words:
“At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money”
“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defence projects…”
Just for your knowledge, the F-22 raptor looks like this:
And the US Air Force (USAF) already has 187 of these, the most advanced jet fighter in the world.
Personally, I commend President Obama and the US Senate for their decision. But there are three main issues I’ll like to explore as a response to this issue, and from there, talk about the whole notion of defence spending in general.
First, the effectiveness of the F-22.
Second, the military-industrial complex.
Third, the emphasis on hardware.
The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, meaning it was designed to take out enemy fighters. For that purpose, it was designed to have stealth features, the ability to “supercruise” (travel at supersonic speed without afterburner), and thrust vectoring for extra manoeuvrability.
But the problem is, given the current nature of military operations in the world today, is such a category of military hardware still relevant? In the post-cold war world, terrorism has superseded conventional militaries as the primary threat to national security. Given this context, wouldn’t it be wiser to spend on counter-insurgency?
Besides, the complexities of such military hardware create huge costs for governments, due to maintenance costs, and the need for specialised support equipment and services. The specialist role of the F-22 also implies other planes have to be bought to fulfil other roles, such as the ground attack role.
This is why some people argue that the alternative, the multi-role F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a better choice:
The second issue is that of the military-industrial complex. Supporters of the acquisition argue that F-22 production provides 25,000 jobs, and indirectly support 70,000 jobs. The defence industry forms an integral part of the US economy, in what is called the military-industrial complex, coined by former US President Dwight Eisenhower.
In a nutshell, it defines the politico-economic relationship between the state, the military and the defence industries.
To illustrate how it works:
A militaristic government wants to use military action to fulfill some strategic or political objective, and sends the military for these operations. Since the military needs hardware and support services to carry out these wars, it has to purchase them from the defence industries, which therefore are supported by and profits from the state. In return, the defence industries sponsor the government, bringing its politicians back into power. The government is then free to continue its militaristic policies, continuing the cycle.
So what is the problem here?
First, the government is trapped in the vicious cycle of militarism. Governments become dependent on the support of the defence industries for their legitimacy, and the defence industries push them towards aggressive foreign policies. Therefore, governments can become corrupted by this relationship, since defence industries hold so much leverage.
Second, it affects other sectors of the economy. The primacy of the defence industry means that other industries are not given the same level of attention and development.
The increasing weakness of US manufacturing industry, with the exception of the defence industry is evidence of the advent of the military-industrial complex.
Third, why all that emphasis on hardware?
As I have mentioned above, the current nature of military action has changed since the times of the Cold War. Of course, there are emerging powers such as China, and re-emerging powers such as Russia, that are still aggressively pursuing policies of modernisation within their militaries.
But there are two things to consider. First, the advent of diplomacy within the international community. The international community has been united by the common threats of international terrorism and rogue states. Their relative military strengths have been channelled towards the containment of these two threats.
Second, given the weak global economy, isn’t it wiser to spend money on more constructive purposes, rather than “destructive” ones?
Actually, come to think of it, the same thing is happening to Singapore too. Over recent years, the Singapore Armed Forces have acquired a whole array of military hardware as part of its project of modernisation. F-15 fighters, Formidable - class stealth frigates, Leopard 2 main battle tanks...
But it begs the question: does it fulfil the true needs of our military? It does, if one considers the age of the equipment these new hardware were designated to replace, but on the other hand, how is “improvement” on our defence capability measured?
It’s certainly not a game of numbers, nor is it a matter of “who’s got the latest hardware”.
And what about the average soldier? Has his life as a soldier improved?
To end off this post on a lighter note, I think the F-22 issue could come to a better conclusion if only they got their hands on this particular F-22:
Yeah. Starscream.
The only question left would be: Will we control him, or will we end up controlled by him?
This was in support of President Obama’s desire to reduce wastage in defence spending, and focusing on fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than military hardware.
In his words:
“At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money”
“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defence projects…”
Just for your knowledge, the F-22 raptor looks like this:
And the US Air Force (USAF) already has 187 of these, the most advanced jet fighter in the world.
Personally, I commend President Obama and the US Senate for their decision. But there are three main issues I’ll like to explore as a response to this issue, and from there, talk about the whole notion of defence spending in general.
First, the effectiveness of the F-22.
Second, the military-industrial complex.
Third, the emphasis on hardware.
The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, meaning it was designed to take out enemy fighters. For that purpose, it was designed to have stealth features, the ability to “supercruise” (travel at supersonic speed without afterburner), and thrust vectoring for extra manoeuvrability.
But the problem is, given the current nature of military operations in the world today, is such a category of military hardware still relevant? In the post-cold war world, terrorism has superseded conventional militaries as the primary threat to national security. Given this context, wouldn’t it be wiser to spend on counter-insurgency?
Besides, the complexities of such military hardware create huge costs for governments, due to maintenance costs, and the need for specialised support equipment and services. The specialist role of the F-22 also implies other planes have to be bought to fulfil other roles, such as the ground attack role.
This is why some people argue that the alternative, the multi-role F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a better choice:
The second issue is that of the military-industrial complex. Supporters of the acquisition argue that F-22 production provides 25,000 jobs, and indirectly support 70,000 jobs. The defence industry forms an integral part of the US economy, in what is called the military-industrial complex, coined by former US President Dwight Eisenhower.
In a nutshell, it defines the politico-economic relationship between the state, the military and the defence industries.
To illustrate how it works:
A militaristic government wants to use military action to fulfill some strategic or political objective, and sends the military for these operations. Since the military needs hardware and support services to carry out these wars, it has to purchase them from the defence industries, which therefore are supported by and profits from the state. In return, the defence industries sponsor the government, bringing its politicians back into power. The government is then free to continue its militaristic policies, continuing the cycle.
So what is the problem here?
First, the government is trapped in the vicious cycle of militarism. Governments become dependent on the support of the defence industries for their legitimacy, and the defence industries push them towards aggressive foreign policies. Therefore, governments can become corrupted by this relationship, since defence industries hold so much leverage.
Second, it affects other sectors of the economy. The primacy of the defence industry means that other industries are not given the same level of attention and development.
The increasing weakness of US manufacturing industry, with the exception of the defence industry is evidence of the advent of the military-industrial complex.
Third, why all that emphasis on hardware?
As I have mentioned above, the current nature of military action has changed since the times of the Cold War. Of course, there are emerging powers such as China, and re-emerging powers such as Russia, that are still aggressively pursuing policies of modernisation within their militaries.
But there are two things to consider. First, the advent of diplomacy within the international community. The international community has been united by the common threats of international terrorism and rogue states. Their relative military strengths have been channelled towards the containment of these two threats.
Second, given the weak global economy, isn’t it wiser to spend money on more constructive purposes, rather than “destructive” ones?
Actually, come to think of it, the same thing is happening to Singapore too. Over recent years, the Singapore Armed Forces have acquired a whole array of military hardware as part of its project of modernisation. F-15 fighters, Formidable - class stealth frigates, Leopard 2 main battle tanks...
But it begs the question: does it fulfil the true needs of our military? It does, if one considers the age of the equipment these new hardware were designated to replace, but on the other hand, how is “improvement” on our defence capability measured?
It’s certainly not a game of numbers, nor is it a matter of “who’s got the latest hardware”.
And what about the average soldier? Has his life as a soldier improved?
To end off this post on a lighter note, I think the F-22 issue could come to a better conclusion if only they got their hands on this particular F-22:
Yeah. Starscream.
The only question left would be: Will we control him, or will we end up controlled by him?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
No Eating or Drinking: Fine $500
If you have ever travelled on an MRT train, you cannot possibly have missed this sign:
As you may already know, or have already paid the price, SMRT has started a “crackdown” on eating and drinking in MRT trains, with SMRT staff patrolling within the carriages and issuing people whom they caught eating or drinking summons.
Offenders may not get the maximum penalty ($500), but a fine would be inevitable.
The trouble is: it seems like the policy is a little taken too far:
According to an article in Straits Times Interactive, Mdm Bibi Zaina Binti Mohamed was fined $30 for eating sweets in the train.
She explained that she had to eat sweets as she felt giddy.
But the enforcement officer was not persuaded.
$30 for sweets, anyone?
So, what are the issues behind this incident?
First, why the sudden enforcement of the no eating / drinking regulation?
Second, what does this incident imply about MRT policy in Singapore?
Why the “crackdown”?
I think there are a few reasons. First, some people have complained about people eating or drinking in trains, and over time, as the complaints accumulated, SMRT felt that the problem had to be arrested. Second, it is the desire to improve our MRT culture, by going back to basics, and making sure that these rules and regulations are obeyed.
The main idea of the “No food and drink” policy was to deter people from dirtying the trains. It is perfectly understandable if SMRT was trying to stop people from eating Mc’s Extra Value Meal or a packet of mixed vegetable rice in the train. But since it is difficult to draw the line between what can and what cannot be eaten, SMRT has little choice but to ban food across the board.
Some might argue, “What’s wrong with eating sweets?” I personally agree. There’s nothing wrong with eating tidbits. But the issue is again where we draw the line. A hard candy or gummy might be alright, but what about biscuits, which leave behind crumbs, or chocolate, which can cause stains and are difficult to clean up.
Besides, what about the wrappers? Considerate people would hold on to them and throw them at a rubbish bin when they alight. Trouble is, not everyone does that, and it's those people who leave their sweet wrappers and whatnot behind that caused this problem.
It may be ridiculous to ban the eating of sweets, but it would be even more ridiculous if SMRT had to come up with something like this:
“LIST OF CANDY ALLOWED IN TRAINS”
Mentos
Tic-Tac
Etc…
Of course, this is exaggerating, but my point is, in any process of policy formation, it is impractical to set specific guidelines on what can and what cannot be eaten, or drank, for that matter.
Despite this reality, it still begs the question: if the issue is whether trains could be left clean, as long as we as citizens exercise personal responsibility, surely this problem wouldn’t have arisen? After all, we have had this policy without such strict enforcement for so many years, and the trains are generally clean.
Besides, other countries don’t make a mountain out of a molehill regarding eating / drinking in trains. In Japan, for example, tidbits in trains are fine, and people are generally responsible enough to keep the trains clean. The only rule they enforce very strictly is not to talk over the phone in the train, and that’s protection for the pregnant and the elderly from the harmful effects of mobile phone radiation (How considerate the Japanese are, don’t you think?).
In addition, it’s perfectly understandable that some forms of food and drink are out of the question, like oily food and sugary drinks, but even plain water is out?
It is therefore somewhat unfair to penalize the majority for the irresponsibility of some minorities.
What this policy implies about our MRT culture is that we still have much to do to improve our MRT culture. The fact that simple rules have to be enforced so strictly means that, we as society still haven’t won the trust of the authorities, and from one another, to be self-responsible. SMRT initiated the clampdown because it does not trust the ability of the people to exercise self-discipline, and some members of society complain because they do not see the same self-discipline being exercised in other members of society.
It also goes to show the simplistic approach SMRT has taken towards improving train conditions, as enforcement officers show no flexibility and compassion in the course of their duties.
Trains have to be kept clean. As long as this objective is meant, why constrain ourselves with so many unnecessary rules and penalties?
As you may already know, or have already paid the price, SMRT has started a “crackdown” on eating and drinking in MRT trains, with SMRT staff patrolling within the carriages and issuing people whom they caught eating or drinking summons.
Offenders may not get the maximum penalty ($500), but a fine would be inevitable.
The trouble is: it seems like the policy is a little taken too far:
According to an article in Straits Times Interactive, Mdm Bibi Zaina Binti Mohamed was fined $30 for eating sweets in the train.
She explained that she had to eat sweets as she felt giddy.
But the enforcement officer was not persuaded.
$30 for sweets, anyone?
So, what are the issues behind this incident?
First, why the sudden enforcement of the no eating / drinking regulation?
Second, what does this incident imply about MRT policy in Singapore?
Why the “crackdown”?
I think there are a few reasons. First, some people have complained about people eating or drinking in trains, and over time, as the complaints accumulated, SMRT felt that the problem had to be arrested. Second, it is the desire to improve our MRT culture, by going back to basics, and making sure that these rules and regulations are obeyed.
The main idea of the “No food and drink” policy was to deter people from dirtying the trains. It is perfectly understandable if SMRT was trying to stop people from eating Mc’s Extra Value Meal or a packet of mixed vegetable rice in the train. But since it is difficult to draw the line between what can and what cannot be eaten, SMRT has little choice but to ban food across the board.
Some might argue, “What’s wrong with eating sweets?” I personally agree. There’s nothing wrong with eating tidbits. But the issue is again where we draw the line. A hard candy or gummy might be alright, but what about biscuits, which leave behind crumbs, or chocolate, which can cause stains and are difficult to clean up.
Besides, what about the wrappers? Considerate people would hold on to them and throw them at a rubbish bin when they alight. Trouble is, not everyone does that, and it's those people who leave their sweet wrappers and whatnot behind that caused this problem.
It may be ridiculous to ban the eating of sweets, but it would be even more ridiculous if SMRT had to come up with something like this:
“LIST OF CANDY ALLOWED IN TRAINS”
Mentos
Tic-Tac
Etc…
Of course, this is exaggerating, but my point is, in any process of policy formation, it is impractical to set specific guidelines on what can and what cannot be eaten, or drank, for that matter.
Despite this reality, it still begs the question: if the issue is whether trains could be left clean, as long as we as citizens exercise personal responsibility, surely this problem wouldn’t have arisen? After all, we have had this policy without such strict enforcement for so many years, and the trains are generally clean.
Besides, other countries don’t make a mountain out of a molehill regarding eating / drinking in trains. In Japan, for example, tidbits in trains are fine, and people are generally responsible enough to keep the trains clean. The only rule they enforce very strictly is not to talk over the phone in the train, and that’s protection for the pregnant and the elderly from the harmful effects of mobile phone radiation (How considerate the Japanese are, don’t you think?).
In addition, it’s perfectly understandable that some forms of food and drink are out of the question, like oily food and sugary drinks, but even plain water is out?
It is therefore somewhat unfair to penalize the majority for the irresponsibility of some minorities.
What this policy implies about our MRT culture is that we still have much to do to improve our MRT culture. The fact that simple rules have to be enforced so strictly means that, we as society still haven’t won the trust of the authorities, and from one another, to be self-responsible. SMRT initiated the clampdown because it does not trust the ability of the people to exercise self-discipline, and some members of society complain because they do not see the same self-discipline being exercised in other members of society.
It also goes to show the simplistic approach SMRT has taken towards improving train conditions, as enforcement officers show no flexibility and compassion in the course of their duties.
Trains have to be kept clean. As long as this objective is meant, why constrain ourselves with so many unnecessary rules and penalties?
Guest Post: The Meaning of Life V.2
WRITTEN BY: IVAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of life is perhaps mankind’s most fundamental question as it gives reason to our existence. For millennia, many philosophers, and even scientists, have tried to decipher this mystery. Yet, many argue that life has no special purpose, and the reason that we are here is due to random chance. However, the ability to ponder about our very existence on this planet is something that defines humanity from all other life forms as we know it today.
Life and consciousness have an extremely complex origin and have often been debated in science. It is our nature in reality that makes us wonder about our place in the cosmos, and without it, our lives would be meaningless and our existence, futile.
In my opinion, life is all about making the world a better place than it was. As a whole, it is the spirit of humanity that keeps us from having wars ever so often, and allows us to progress. Since the appearance of our species, many fights and violent happenings had occurred, and it is only because mankind is in itself an inherently angst-driven being. Yet, why is it that people nowadays seem to show more care and concern for others than thousands of years ago? Well, the answer lies in the fact that many people nowadays are trying their best to aim towards harmony amongst all. Despite having wars and terror attacks plaguing the general public, it is no doubt that many of us have advanced from a fight for survival to a fight for peace.
Many times, the amount that people can go toward standing up against atrocities and injustice has shown that we are not always following the course of evolution. In the Darwinian theory of natural selection, stronger species tend to survive better than weaker ones, and fighting between humans is generally a result of this. Yet, is our movement toward world peace nature or nurture? It can be both, but the latter is the most likely cause. The shift toward global unity lies within us, and it is what gives life its meaning. If everyone does their own little part to contribute toward society, the change will be tremendous and our place in the large expanse of the cosmos, justified.
Life is full of unpredictability, and many times we might meet obstacles and challenges. The will and power to overcome them also gives meaning to life, and it is our determination that changes our lives. Through all the trials and tribulations, we have all made it to what we are today. I firmly believe that life is about surviving each day, and it is this that gives us the reason to live on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of life is perhaps mankind’s most fundamental question as it gives reason to our existence. For millennia, many philosophers, and even scientists, have tried to decipher this mystery. Yet, many argue that life has no special purpose, and the reason that we are here is due to random chance. However, the ability to ponder about our very existence on this planet is something that defines humanity from all other life forms as we know it today.
Life and consciousness have an extremely complex origin and have often been debated in science. It is our nature in reality that makes us wonder about our place in the cosmos, and without it, our lives would be meaningless and our existence, futile.
In my opinion, life is all about making the world a better place than it was. As a whole, it is the spirit of humanity that keeps us from having wars ever so often, and allows us to progress. Since the appearance of our species, many fights and violent happenings had occurred, and it is only because mankind is in itself an inherently angst-driven being. Yet, why is it that people nowadays seem to show more care and concern for others than thousands of years ago? Well, the answer lies in the fact that many people nowadays are trying their best to aim towards harmony amongst all. Despite having wars and terror attacks plaguing the general public, it is no doubt that many of us have advanced from a fight for survival to a fight for peace.
Many times, the amount that people can go toward standing up against atrocities and injustice has shown that we are not always following the course of evolution. In the Darwinian theory of natural selection, stronger species tend to survive better than weaker ones, and fighting between humans is generally a result of this. Yet, is our movement toward world peace nature or nurture? It can be both, but the latter is the most likely cause. The shift toward global unity lies within us, and it is what gives life its meaning. If everyone does their own little part to contribute toward society, the change will be tremendous and our place in the large expanse of the cosmos, justified.
Life is full of unpredictability, and many times we might meet obstacles and challenges. The will and power to overcome them also gives meaning to life, and it is our determination that changes our lives. Through all the trials and tribulations, we have all made it to what we are today. I firmly believe that life is about surviving each day, and it is this that gives us the reason to live on.
The New Rage? ROADKILL TEDDIES!!
A soft toy designer has come up with a macabre new range of road kill teddies.
The first to be launched is Twitch the Raccoon which comes complete with its own body bag to keep the maggots out, reports Metro.
Twitch also has an identity tag revealing it was "run over over by a milk float last Thursday, near the Hangar Lane Giratory system in London".
A zip on each side of the toy allows the owner to remove Twitch's innards and stuff them back in again. A tyre print runs across its back.
Creators, Compost Communications, style themselves 'toy terrorists' and according to their website: "We squash and burn and bludgeon and maim. But we're also toy fanatics like you. We love toys."
Toy creator Adam Arber, 33, from London, said: "I got the idea from looking at my mother-in-law's dog which is quite ugly and I thought it would make a great toy. A friend of mine had taken some pictures of road kill and the two things gelled into one idea."
He said he thought the toys, which cost £25, would appeal to people with a sense of humour and "probably not anyone easily upset".
Coming soon are other characters including Grind the rabbit, Splodge the hedgehog and Pop the weasel.
The toys go on sale this week at Play Lounge in Soho, London, and from mid-December on www.roadkilltoys.com.
Taken from: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2616729.html?menu=news.quirkies
I have a warped sense of humor and I WANT THAT TOY!!! (Someone get the entire range for my christmas present!!) There's something appealing about that bulging eyes, tyre marks and spilled innards... And the best part is, I can decide how much innards to leave dangling out. Hahahaha, it'll be nice to have a little private "Happy Tree Friends" episode at home. *Wolfish Grin* Their advertisements left me choking with laughter...
Taken from : http://www.roadkilltoys.com/content/view/34/179/
That's not all! There is also "Earl the dead cat", the last cat you'll ever need.
The only Mad Dog Productions product still available, Earl the Dead Cat has been hanging around doing nothing since 1985. A flat, understuffed toy cat with X's for eyes, Earl comes with a humorous death certificate listing all the reasons a dead cat is better than a live one. Well, a lot of them anyway. For one, he doesn't need a messy litterbox or eat smelly cat food. He doesn't wake you up in the morning by sitting on your nose and mistaking it for a catnip mouse. And he doesn't scratch when the kids swing him around by his tail.
Taken from: http://www.earlthedeadcat.com/
The Power of the Metaphysical
Today marks the date of the longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century.
According to the Channel NewsAsia webpage:
“Ancient superstition and modern commerce came together in an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity which could end up being the most watched eclipse in history, due to its path over Earth's most densely inhabited areas.”
How did solar eclipses come about? Let’s start with the mythical reasons.
In ancient China, it was thought that the sun was swallowed by a dog. In India, it was thought that two demons, Rahu and Ketu, swallowed the sun, and snuffing out its life-giving light.
Since light was valued for its life-giving quality, and as a symbol for good, eclipses were seen as events of evil, for they bring about darkness.
What about the scientific reason?
Eclipses happen when the Sun and Moon are perfectly aligned. The Moon blocks the Sun, and casts a shadow over Earth.
But of course, this simple explanation does not dispel the apparently superstitious notions that people might have about eclipses.
For example, in India, many expectant mothers due for caesarean deliveries insisted on having their procedure rescheduled, and many other expectant mothers insisted on staying at home, both cases for the fear of the eclipse affecting the child and causing birth defects.
One might think this is pure superstition, but thousands of years of cultural practices are notoriously difficult to change.
Besides, despite the disenchanting and sobering quality of scientific explanation, eclipses never fail to amaze us. This goes to show the human interest in the metaphysical, and the power of the human imagination.
To end off, here’s a picture of today’s eclipse:
According to the Channel NewsAsia webpage:
“Ancient superstition and modern commerce came together in an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity which could end up being the most watched eclipse in history, due to its path over Earth's most densely inhabited areas.”
How did solar eclipses come about? Let’s start with the mythical reasons.
In ancient China, it was thought that the sun was swallowed by a dog. In India, it was thought that two demons, Rahu and Ketu, swallowed the sun, and snuffing out its life-giving light.
Since light was valued for its life-giving quality, and as a symbol for good, eclipses were seen as events of evil, for they bring about darkness.
What about the scientific reason?
Eclipses happen when the Sun and Moon are perfectly aligned. The Moon blocks the Sun, and casts a shadow over Earth.
But of course, this simple explanation does not dispel the apparently superstitious notions that people might have about eclipses.
For example, in India, many expectant mothers due for caesarean deliveries insisted on having their procedure rescheduled, and many other expectant mothers insisted on staying at home, both cases for the fear of the eclipse affecting the child and causing birth defects.
One might think this is pure superstition, but thousands of years of cultural practices are notoriously difficult to change.
Besides, despite the disenchanting and sobering quality of scientific explanation, eclipses never fail to amaze us. This goes to show the human interest in the metaphysical, and the power of the human imagination.
To end off, here’s a picture of today’s eclipse:
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Plastics - Trash that we create out of Convenience
BYOB or "Bring Your Own Bag" Campaign has been ringing in our ears for the past 2 years, ever since NEA has introduced this officially on 18 April 2007. This was introduced to encourage Singaporeans to use less plastic bags, as a way of reducing plastic trash created every year. 2 years of running the campaign since then, but what have us Singaporeans actually learned from it?
So far, we can observe that environmental concerns and awareness may be slightly increased. But with the bustling life of the city, such concerns for the environment seems to be drowned by voices of economic progress.
Plastics is a non-biodegradable trash, that remains in the same physical form in the environment. Even with the introduction of bio-degradable plastics, such plastics last for hundereds of years in an anaerobic environment. Since we consume a lot of plastics, we can only see a build up of plastic waste faster than any plastics can degrade.
The impact of plastics on the environment is exemplified by the marine debris we created. From Singapore's ICCS 2008 (International Coastal Cleanup Singapore) data collected from mangrove swamps only, marine debris contains more than 40% of plastic trash.What about the whole world? Such marine debris endanger marine lives, with fishing nets trapping animals, and animals dying of consuming plastic pieces.
Such plastic trash is not limited to cities. As countries like China push for development in the rural areas, the trash produced there is also tremendous, and is increasing everyday. And just looking at this upstream part of Yangtze River in the rural area of China, I am sure one can imagine what will happen to the downstream of the river.
The bigger picture of plastics in marine debris is the Plastic Trash Vortex created in the world oceans. With plastics and trash being dumped into river streams and washed into the seas, sea currents around the world coagulate the waste in certain locations on the oceans. This is due to sea currents will form regions of stagnant water bodies in the oceans. The trash locations are shown by the animation below provided by Green Peace.
So with so much trash in the world today, should we actually re-think how we should use plastics more responsibly? Its a social responsibility. It starts from you and me, and it starts today. Its never too late to do something for the environment, and this battle for the environment is an arduous journey ahead.
BYOB Campaign: http://app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/article.asp?pid=2859
Marine Debris: http://coastalcleanup.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/unep-marine-litter-a-global-challenge/#more-550
Plastic Trash Vortex: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex#
So far, we can observe that environmental concerns and awareness may be slightly increased. But with the bustling life of the city, such concerns for the environment seems to be drowned by voices of economic progress.
Plastics is a non-biodegradable trash, that remains in the same physical form in the environment. Even with the introduction of bio-degradable plastics, such plastics last for hundereds of years in an anaerobic environment. Since we consume a lot of plastics, we can only see a build up of plastic waste faster than any plastics can degrade.
The impact of plastics on the environment is exemplified by the marine debris we created. From Singapore's ICCS 2008 (International Coastal Cleanup Singapore) data collected from mangrove swamps only, marine debris contains more than 40% of plastic trash.What about the whole world? Such marine debris endanger marine lives, with fishing nets trapping animals, and animals dying of consuming plastic pieces.
Such plastic trash is not limited to cities. As countries like China push for development in the rural areas, the trash produced there is also tremendous, and is increasing everyday. And just looking at this upstream part of Yangtze River in the rural area of China, I am sure one can imagine what will happen to the downstream of the river.
The bigger picture of plastics in marine debris is the Plastic Trash Vortex created in the world oceans. With plastics and trash being dumped into river streams and washed into the seas, sea currents around the world coagulate the waste in certain locations on the oceans. This is due to sea currents will form regions of stagnant water bodies in the oceans. The trash locations are shown by the animation below provided by Green Peace.
So with so much trash in the world today, should we actually re-think how we should use plastics more responsibly? Its a social responsibility. It starts from you and me, and it starts today. Its never too late to do something for the environment, and this battle for the environment is an arduous journey ahead.
BYOB Campaign: http://app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/article.asp?pid=2859
Marine Debris: http://coastalcleanup.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/unep-marine-litter-a-global-challenge/#more-550
Plastic Trash Vortex: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex#
Responding to Belief and Religion
*disclaimer: this is strictly based on my own understanding & opinion of Christianity. I speak nothing of other religions as I do not know enough to comment. So take this entire discussion of religion in the context of Christianity.*
Let me proceed with my arguments sysmetically according to arguments (and their order) as mentioned by De Maitre.
I do agree, for anyone to claim to be the Son of God now will almost definitely be treated with schizophrenia. Let us go back to the time of Christ. Isn't it the same? Crucifixion is one of the most horrible, degrading, offensive and shameful death penalty of that age. It's to the extent that it's a taboo to even talk about it. Who on earth in that time would have believed that God was killed by men via the most vile method. Not just believing, but also following. Unless there were signs that proved the words true. The resurrection was witnessed by >500 people, which was one of the key factor to the survival of this faith till date. Testimony to the truth of the one crucified.
Don't confuse the Church with God. Church is flawed for men is flawed. God is not. Catholic church had indeed swayed severely in the past, which resulted in the rise of Protestant. What the Church thought was not in line with what faith was about. Publicly and in name, they might still have considered themselves believers/saved/whatever-term. But by the standard of faith and God, they are worse than unbelievers (as stated by the Bible).
Agreed that human interpretation can be problematic and even contrary to what's the actual truth to the interpreted. God is indeed forgiving, and thus He gave a way out through Christ. All you have to do is to believe. How do you receive a gift you do not believe exist? I can try and even beg you to receive this big diamond I have in my hands for pursuit of your dreams, but if you do not believe that I have it despite that I'm holding it, you can't receive it. And so my heart aches for your unbelief which results in the inability to receive. For men is flawed, hence all fall short of the perfect nature of heaven. Defining evil is going to be problematic, because it is a extremely subjective standard. Even on Earth, we attempt to get past this problem by having the juridical system. Now just expand this juridical system on a broader scale, that's faith. (It's not entirely true that believers will not be judged for their actions, or that all believers will not go to hell, but won't go into details here at this time.)
Yes there are archaeologists and historians, but even they can't agree among themselves. And Bible has been proven correct by archaeological evidence, not entirely but increasingly more. The fact that the 66 books of the Bible had been written by multiple authors across centuries is not refuted. But yet when compiled, all of them flow into a single coherent story with a single message. The authenticity of the Bible lies not in the books, but the whole of it. Yes the modern Bible has been selected by a council of biblical scholars out of a list of other books. One very important criteria used for the selection is that the events/stuff mentioned in a book has to be witnessed by 2 other apostles or mentioned in other 2 books/letters (since some books are actually letters written by Paul). The Old Testament made predictions that all were fulfilled by Christ centuries later recorded in the New Testament.
I absolutely agree that God gave us a brain. He wants us to be wise and thinking beings, not automatons (that's why we are in so much trouble today). I do agree that I disagree with some Christians/believers who think that questioning is blasphemy. In fact, the Bible encourages us to question. But question with a open mind. No point questioning if you already closed your heart and mind to one side of the equation. That's just proving your point, not questioning.
We do not worship the cross. It's a reminder and symbol of what have been done, and what we believe in. Any Christians who start to worship a/the cross will be committing idolatry, for then that thing becomes the center of our worship, not God.
Yes many Christians are quite enthusiastic (sometimes too pushy) about the preaching of the gospel. But take a minute to see things from their point of view. If you know a person who habitually steals and robs, and love him/her dearly as a family member/friend/whatever, will you not keep trying to persuade this person to stop and repent for you believe that someday the law will get to him/her? Out of love, Christians preach to save (because of what we believe). That should be the primary motivation. But of course with flawed humans, things do get skewed at times.
And so understand that like students who increase their knowledge with time and education, Christians too increase their understanding and knowledge of the faith with time and education. Inability of young Christians to answer your questions does not make the faith a mockery/fake.
Now on to the next post.
Does Religion closes our mind, or does Science? Both, I'll say. It depends on the person. Albert Einstein himself said 'Religion without Science is blind. Science without Religion is lame.' But yet now many put Science and Religion on opposite ends of the pole, when they are complements.
People still strongly believe in evolution despite the increasingly evidence interpreted against it. Is that science, or is that faith? Many scientists themselves have converted from atheists to theists at least because of what Science has showed them, that it's impossible for God not to exist based on the observations of creations around us.
Just as religious people claim science is anti-god based on what little they know, do amateurs of science (like us non Ph.D specialists) have the right to criticize faith based on what little they/we know? It's like seeing an ant hole and claiming it's a well.
Ok even among different schools, different biblical scholars have different stand on the Genesis. I'll just go with the one I feel most strongly for. If you say that God's concept of time is different across scriptures, you gotta support with verses. According to Hebrew's actual text, it IS our day-and-night day So God created the world and the universe in 6 actual human days. If you think about it, He doesn't even have to do it. Just a snap of the fingers and everything can be completed in an instant. Why 6 days? God does not ask us to do what He himself does not first do. It's an example & model to the commandment of working for 6 days, and rest 1 day (the Sabbath).
Science does recognize the complexity of nature. Many scientists believe in existence of God because of 1 scientific principle: "irreducible complexity". It's so complex but yet cannot be reduced into simpler bits because all depends on each to work. That's one of the many arguments against evolution, by the way.
Now then, is Science or Religion reducing the maginificence of the universe, or is amateurs and smart alecks reducing it?
I too am against Crusades. That's just an example when the Church becomes tainted by the fall of this world. Thus the fall of prominence of the Catholic Church and the rise of Protestanism, for they have skewed the Word of God and only served themselves. It's such situations that remind me why it is so so so important for people of faith to behave in accordance to the One they believe in, for they are living testimonies and witnesses as stated in the Bible.
God is loving, but He too is just. A judge of the high court can't just acquit a person who broke the law just because of love. But out of love, the judge after annoucing the sentence, come down from the stand, and bears the guilt and punishment of the loved but fallen one.
Some extra note:
Many claim that it is unfair for us to take the blame of Adam's mistake. I say it's not. Out of free will, our ancestors chose a world without God. This IS the world without God. One of sins, disasters, crimes, wars, and other ridiculous problems. One whereby it's impossible to achieve perfection because of the world we live in. Take a more worldly example. You are born into Singapore and have to live in this society with its rules (and problems) because of choices made by the forefathers. Yet nobody complains it's not fair. Irony isn't it? Way out? Migrate (if you can). So too with this ungodly world. Way out? Believe in the existence of the ticket out, and receive it.
Take this not as a sermon, for I am unqualified. But simply my disagreements with the arguments earlier, for I too have questioned plenty and the above are answers that satisfied my questions & doubts. Too many people judge based on lack of knowledge & understanding (both religious and scientific people alike).
Let me proceed with my arguments sysmetically according to arguments (and their order) as mentioned by De Maitre.
I do agree, for anyone to claim to be the Son of God now will almost definitely be treated with schizophrenia. Let us go back to the time of Christ. Isn't it the same? Crucifixion is one of the most horrible, degrading, offensive and shameful death penalty of that age. It's to the extent that it's a taboo to even talk about it. Who on earth in that time would have believed that God was killed by men via the most vile method. Not just believing, but also following. Unless there were signs that proved the words true. The resurrection was witnessed by >500 people, which was one of the key factor to the survival of this faith till date. Testimony to the truth of the one crucified.
Don't confuse the Church with God. Church is flawed for men is flawed. God is not. Catholic church had indeed swayed severely in the past, which resulted in the rise of Protestant. What the Church thought was not in line with what faith was about. Publicly and in name, they might still have considered themselves believers/saved/whatever-term. But by the standard of faith and God, they are worse than unbelievers (as stated by the Bible).
Agreed that human interpretation can be problematic and even contrary to what's the actual truth to the interpreted. God is indeed forgiving, and thus He gave a way out through Christ. All you have to do is to believe. How do you receive a gift you do not believe exist? I can try and even beg you to receive this big diamond I have in my hands for pursuit of your dreams, but if you do not believe that I have it despite that I'm holding it, you can't receive it. And so my heart aches for your unbelief which results in the inability to receive. For men is flawed, hence all fall short of the perfect nature of heaven. Defining evil is going to be problematic, because it is a extremely subjective standard. Even on Earth, we attempt to get past this problem by having the juridical system. Now just expand this juridical system on a broader scale, that's faith. (It's not entirely true that believers will not be judged for their actions, or that all believers will not go to hell, but won't go into details here at this time.)
Yes there are archaeologists and historians, but even they can't agree among themselves. And Bible has been proven correct by archaeological evidence, not entirely but increasingly more. The fact that the 66 books of the Bible had been written by multiple authors across centuries is not refuted. But yet when compiled, all of them flow into a single coherent story with a single message. The authenticity of the Bible lies not in the books, but the whole of it. Yes the modern Bible has been selected by a council of biblical scholars out of a list of other books. One very important criteria used for the selection is that the events/stuff mentioned in a book has to be witnessed by 2 other apostles or mentioned in other 2 books/letters (since some books are actually letters written by Paul). The Old Testament made predictions that all were fulfilled by Christ centuries later recorded in the New Testament.
I absolutely agree that God gave us a brain. He wants us to be wise and thinking beings, not automatons (that's why we are in so much trouble today). I do agree that I disagree with some Christians/believers who think that questioning is blasphemy. In fact, the Bible encourages us to question. But question with a open mind. No point questioning if you already closed your heart and mind to one side of the equation. That's just proving your point, not questioning.
We do not worship the cross. It's a reminder and symbol of what have been done, and what we believe in. Any Christians who start to worship a/the cross will be committing idolatry, for then that thing becomes the center of our worship, not God.
Yes many Christians are quite enthusiastic (sometimes too pushy) about the preaching of the gospel. But take a minute to see things from their point of view. If you know a person who habitually steals and robs, and love him/her dearly as a family member/friend/whatever, will you not keep trying to persuade this person to stop and repent for you believe that someday the law will get to him/her? Out of love, Christians preach to save (because of what we believe). That should be the primary motivation. But of course with flawed humans, things do get skewed at times.
And so understand that like students who increase their knowledge with time and education, Christians too increase their understanding and knowledge of the faith with time and education. Inability of young Christians to answer your questions does not make the faith a mockery/fake.
Now on to the next post.
Does Religion closes our mind, or does Science? Both, I'll say. It depends on the person. Albert Einstein himself said 'Religion without Science is blind. Science without Religion is lame.' But yet now many put Science and Religion on opposite ends of the pole, when they are complements.
People still strongly believe in evolution despite the increasingly evidence interpreted against it. Is that science, or is that faith? Many scientists themselves have converted from atheists to theists at least because of what Science has showed them, that it's impossible for God not to exist based on the observations of creations around us.
Just as religious people claim science is anti-god based on what little they know, do amateurs of science (like us non Ph.D specialists) have the right to criticize faith based on what little they/we know? It's like seeing an ant hole and claiming it's a well.
Ok even among different schools, different biblical scholars have different stand on the Genesis. I'll just go with the one I feel most strongly for. If you say that God's concept of time is different across scriptures, you gotta support with verses. According to Hebrew's actual text, it IS our day-and-night day So God created the world and the universe in 6 actual human days. If you think about it, He doesn't even have to do it. Just a snap of the fingers and everything can be completed in an instant. Why 6 days? God does not ask us to do what He himself does not first do. It's an example & model to the commandment of working for 6 days, and rest 1 day (the Sabbath).
Science does recognize the complexity of nature. Many scientists believe in existence of God because of 1 scientific principle: "irreducible complexity". It's so complex but yet cannot be reduced into simpler bits because all depends on each to work. That's one of the many arguments against evolution, by the way.
Now then, is Science or Religion reducing the maginificence of the universe, or is amateurs and smart alecks reducing it?
I too am against Crusades. That's just an example when the Church becomes tainted by the fall of this world. Thus the fall of prominence of the Catholic Church and the rise of Protestanism, for they have skewed the Word of God and only served themselves. It's such situations that remind me why it is so so so important for people of faith to behave in accordance to the One they believe in, for they are living testimonies and witnesses as stated in the Bible.
God is loving, but He too is just. A judge of the high court can't just acquit a person who broke the law just because of love. But out of love, the judge after annoucing the sentence, come down from the stand, and bears the guilt and punishment of the loved but fallen one.
Some extra note:
Many claim that it is unfair for us to take the blame of Adam's mistake. I say it's not. Out of free will, our ancestors chose a world without God. This IS the world without God. One of sins, disasters, crimes, wars, and other ridiculous problems. One whereby it's impossible to achieve perfection because of the world we live in. Take a more worldly example. You are born into Singapore and have to live in this society with its rules (and problems) because of choices made by the forefathers. Yet nobody complains it's not fair. Irony isn't it? Way out? Migrate (if you can). So too with this ungodly world. Way out? Believe in the existence of the ticket out, and receive it.
Take this not as a sermon, for I am unqualified. But simply my disagreements with the arguments earlier, for I too have questioned plenty and the above are answers that satisfied my questions & doubts. Too many people judge based on lack of knowledge & understanding (both religious and scientific people alike).
On Belief – The Response: The Realities of Religiosity
Before I start, the usual disclaimer: what I postulate in this post is strictly based on my observations and readings about the nature of religion, and in no way aims to discredit any religion. I simply want to highlight the realities of belief in our society today, the purpose of which is to highlight the problems to the public.
This post of mine is a response to Ed Chng’s On Belief, which discusses the relationship between science and religion, and what it means for the nature of belief. While I am going to question the nature of belief and religiosity, I’ll be focusing more on the realities of belief in the world today.
I identified three main issues from Ed’s post:
First, the premise of the scientific discipline,
Second, the complexity of the universe,
Third, the reality of religion as a social institution.
First, on the premise of the scientific discipline.
It is true that the scientific discipline only recognises what can be proven. This is the core principle of the scientific method. Knowledge is based on experimentation that can be repeated, with observable and measureable results.
But this reveals two questions:
First, does it become “epistemological axioms”?
Second, in “reducing” phenomena to numbers, equations and models, does it not limit or eliminate the possibility of entities not measureable by such empirical methods, an entity like... like God?
My responses to the following questions are as follows:
First, science recognises the temporal nature of knowledge, and accepts change. By contrast, religion is bound by doctrine, and assumes knowledge to be absolute and eternal.
Of course, religious doctrines have themselves undergone change and evolution, but in today’s context, they have fossilised into “unquestionable truths” about what theologians think about the world.
In addition, the axiomatic nature of scientific knowledge doesn’t mean it cannot be proven wrong. There are places in the universe where the laws of physics break down (black holes, at the quantum level), and these phenomena are discovered with scientific methods. Theories are constantly subject to change and challenge, but rather than resist change, theories undergo improvement through these processes.
What atheist scientists (like biologist Richard Dawkins) and philosophers are against is when religiosity closes the minds of people. For these people, God is simply another word for “I don’t know.”
When this happens, knowledge will completely lose its meaning.
Second, on the complexity of the universe.
Ed argues that science does not recognise the complexity of the universe. The reverse is true. Science recognises the complexity of the universe, because it can comprehend the universe in scales beyond the human imagination.
Look at the values. What is a light-year? The distance travelled by light in a year: 9,460,730,472,580.8 km. And the distances between stellar objects are measured in the millions of light years.
What about time? There’s the cosmological decade, which is logarithmic in nature, which means a cosmological decade is ten times its preceding decade. So by the time you reach the estimated end of the universe you’ll need several pieces of paper just to draw zeros.
On the other extreme, there’s the Planck time: 1 attosecond, one billion billionths of a second. Can you imagine what can be done in that time?
Religion, on the other hand, is handicapped by the weaknesses of human language.
Let’s take for example Genesis. If God created the universe in six days, what is a day? Earth was created in Day 2, so it might be fair to assume Days 3, 4, 5, and 6 is one Earth day (not specifying the number of hours, because there is no consensus across civilisations), but what about Day 1? Still one Earth day?
Not to mention the idea that God's concept of time is different from ours in other parts of scripture.
So it begs the question: is science reducing the universe, or is it religion?
Of course, here I’m criticising the literalist approach taken by the born-again evangelicals , but the point is, who now has a true sense of scale?
Third, the realities of religion as a social institution.
Since religion is a social institution, it does fulfill certain social functions. I agree with that. For many, it has provided security, or a moral compass. I do not question the ethical ideals of religion. But seeing the realities of religiosity created many doubts in me about the nature of belief in this world.
According to the Thomas Theorem, from a sociologist of that name, situations that are defined as real are real in their consequences. So putting aside the question whether God does exist or not, the fact that people believe in God creates social structures and behaviour that are very real in their consequences.
Like for example the Crusades, and international terrorism today.
And since religion is a social institution, power relations apply in any social institution.
The institutionalisation of Christianity in post-Roman times generated wealth and influence, which in turn created interests and power structures that remain in place today. And it is these that had been the cause of human suffering throughout our history, because churchmen gave up the spiritual for the mundane.
As the saying goes: “Power corrupts.”
When clergymen launch wars in the name of God, they are in actuality fighting for worldly interests. When theologians launch inquisitions, they are trying to maintain their monopoly of knowledge and control of thought.
So when ministers preach the love of God yet at the same time warn of eternal damnation in hell, it makes you wonder whether that love is truly unconditional.
This post of mine is a response to Ed Chng’s On Belief, which discusses the relationship between science and religion, and what it means for the nature of belief. While I am going to question the nature of belief and religiosity, I’ll be focusing more on the realities of belief in the world today.
I identified three main issues from Ed’s post:
First, the premise of the scientific discipline,
Second, the complexity of the universe,
Third, the reality of religion as a social institution.
First, on the premise of the scientific discipline.
It is true that the scientific discipline only recognises what can be proven. This is the core principle of the scientific method. Knowledge is based on experimentation that can be repeated, with observable and measureable results.
But this reveals two questions:
First, does it become “epistemological axioms”?
Second, in “reducing” phenomena to numbers, equations and models, does it not limit or eliminate the possibility of entities not measureable by such empirical methods, an entity like... like God?
My responses to the following questions are as follows:
First, science recognises the temporal nature of knowledge, and accepts change. By contrast, religion is bound by doctrine, and assumes knowledge to be absolute and eternal.
Of course, religious doctrines have themselves undergone change and evolution, but in today’s context, they have fossilised into “unquestionable truths” about what theologians think about the world.
In addition, the axiomatic nature of scientific knowledge doesn’t mean it cannot be proven wrong. There are places in the universe where the laws of physics break down (black holes, at the quantum level), and these phenomena are discovered with scientific methods. Theories are constantly subject to change and challenge, but rather than resist change, theories undergo improvement through these processes.
What atheist scientists (like biologist Richard Dawkins) and philosophers are against is when religiosity closes the minds of people. For these people, God is simply another word for “I don’t know.”
When this happens, knowledge will completely lose its meaning.
Second, on the complexity of the universe.
Ed argues that science does not recognise the complexity of the universe. The reverse is true. Science recognises the complexity of the universe, because it can comprehend the universe in scales beyond the human imagination.
Look at the values. What is a light-year? The distance travelled by light in a year: 9,460,730,472,580.8 km. And the distances between stellar objects are measured in the millions of light years.
What about time? There’s the cosmological decade, which is logarithmic in nature, which means a cosmological decade is ten times its preceding decade. So by the time you reach the estimated end of the universe you’ll need several pieces of paper just to draw zeros.
On the other extreme, there’s the Planck time: 1 attosecond, one billion billionths of a second. Can you imagine what can be done in that time?
Religion, on the other hand, is handicapped by the weaknesses of human language.
Let’s take for example Genesis. If God created the universe in six days, what is a day? Earth was created in Day 2, so it might be fair to assume Days 3, 4, 5, and 6 is one Earth day (not specifying the number of hours, because there is no consensus across civilisations), but what about Day 1? Still one Earth day?
Not to mention the idea that God's concept of time is different from ours in other parts of scripture.
So it begs the question: is science reducing the universe, or is it religion?
Of course, here I’m criticising the literalist approach taken by the born-again evangelicals , but the point is, who now has a true sense of scale?
Third, the realities of religion as a social institution.
Since religion is a social institution, it does fulfill certain social functions. I agree with that. For many, it has provided security, or a moral compass. I do not question the ethical ideals of religion. But seeing the realities of religiosity created many doubts in me about the nature of belief in this world.
According to the Thomas Theorem, from a sociologist of that name, situations that are defined as real are real in their consequences. So putting aside the question whether God does exist or not, the fact that people believe in God creates social structures and behaviour that are very real in their consequences.
Like for example the Crusades, and international terrorism today.
And since religion is a social institution, power relations apply in any social institution.
The institutionalisation of Christianity in post-Roman times generated wealth and influence, which in turn created interests and power structures that remain in place today. And it is these that had been the cause of human suffering throughout our history, because churchmen gave up the spiritual for the mundane.
As the saying goes: “Power corrupts.”
When clergymen launch wars in the name of God, they are in actuality fighting for worldly interests. When theologians launch inquisitions, they are trying to maintain their monopoly of knowledge and control of thought.
So when ministers preach the love of God yet at the same time warn of eternal damnation in hell, it makes you wonder whether that love is truly unconditional.
Why De Maitre doesn’t have a Religion
A few people have asked me what do I have against I have religion. I don't have an issue with religion per se; I just have issues with believers.
To me religion is merely a social construct. Being an avid historian, I don’t believe in abstract concepts of divinity or miracles. As I mentioned before, 2000 years ago, a man who claimed to speak with God and spread warnings of doom was a prophet, but today, a man who does the same is said to suffer from schizophrenia or paranoid delusions. And our ancestors have a way of over-glorifying hear-say and great-deeds. For example, the ancient Greeks worshipped dinosaur bones as the bones of long dead heroes like Achilles, Hector and Hercules because they believed that heroes were larger than life.
Religion and the concept of hell were designed to inspire fear in evil-doers and motivate them into doing charitable, gracious and kind deeds in their lifetime. It aims to build a Utopia on Earth; unfortunately, people have a way of manipulating religion to suit themselves. Example would be the blatant use of fictional “divine origins” as a means to a king’s legitimate rule or one’s ability to perform extraordinary feats. E.g. The Holy Roman Emperor of Medieval Europe, The Divine Emperor of China and The demi-God Hercules (son of Zeus). Another example would be the blatant corruption of the Catholic faith by the Catholic Church, the primary example would be the “Sale of Indulgences”, where the church literally created certificates indicating that the holder would be sin-free in the eyes of the Church and therefore God. Somehow, God became secondary in comparison to the Church.
As you can see, the original tenants of religious belief have been lost over time due to flawed human interpretation. There is nothing wrong with religion it’s just how people interpreted it that becomes an issue! It is the people’s belief that gets corrupted with disillusions that we have created over time to comfort and cheat ourselves that made me write off religion for good. I don’t have a religion, but I think God (if any is around) is a little more discerning and forgiving than that. Let me inject some reason in “If I have done no evil, but just because I’m not a Christian (or Muslim for that matter), why do I deserve to go to hell?”
I question this more avidly in view that a believer is promised a place in heaven just because he kills a non-believer. This is what I define as my issue against the believers rather than the religion. This concept of Crusade/Jihad has been wrongly intepreted by believers. I believe the original intentions were to protect the faith, not to wipe out other faiths in a bloody and forceful manner. I'm sure God (if any) had a better sense of ethics than we do.
In today’s context, on occasions, belief has been reduced to the point of ridicule to me. That’s why I use the term Modern Christianity and Modern Buddhism. I will be using these 2 examples for my writing here.
We have anthropological studies, archaeology and written records deciphered by historians to tell us what the world was like in the past. Yet, I have met many Christians who still have to insist that the Bible is an infallible source of historical information. As a diehard historian, I’m really tempted to take off my slipper and slap them to death for their blind faith in a book that was NOT written by Christ or God himself, but from a cesspit of authors handpicked and compiled by the council of Nicea. I’m using the word cesspit because there are thousands of religious literature out there written by thousands of authors hundreds of years after the death of Christ. The creators of the bible merely picked out what suited their ideals and rejected unacceptable bits. E.g. The Bible mentioned that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but no one knows who Cain (their son) married. Ever wondered why? Draw up a family tree and you’ll realize that the only possibility would be that he either married his sister or his niece. That would be incest wouldn’t it? Naturally, the Church wouldn’t have that, so it was conveniently excluded.
When I ask many Christians or Catholics this question, their answer is always this mysterious “only God knows”. To me, God (if there’s one) gave us a brain; I think he meant us to use it with a little more discretion and common sense. Sometimes, people have really weird beliefs that leave me flabbergasted.
Tell me then, how do you classify a cross? Some have said that it is not a likeness of God, so the second commandment has not been violated. The original cross was depicted with the body of Christ on it. And since Christ is the son of God, he is an extension of God. So we’re back to square one. Some might argue that it is from the first testament and not very valid, all I’ll say is “it’s the same God we are talking about isn’t it?”
Christians aside, let me move on and attack Modern Buddhism. Ideally, Buddhist monks should shun the materialistic world, look at the Buddhism monks in Singapore, some drive around in a Benz and live in a condominium. Temples are becoming grand buildings designed by architects. The “life of self-denial and spiritual-enlightenment”, my ass. I'm not saying all Buddhists are like this, but it’s a growing trend in today's context. I think the term "embracing modernity" is a terrible excuse for the abandonment of old value of "humility".
Buddha preached about letting go of one’s material demands in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. As I mentioned in my previous post, if Buddha still had a body to flip and jump in, he would be positively bouncing in indignation in his grave and the degeneration of his teachings. There are thousands of Aunties and Uncles flocking to his temples to pray for luck at 4D and TOTO. Buddha’s teachings were never about him turning into a religious icon. It was the work of his disciples. I think even the preservation of his bodily remains as relics would have made him scream in frustration, if he weren’t beyond the demands of humanly emotions and not that at peace.
If he were still alive, he would be puking blood at the hierarchical system practiced by monasteries. It was NOT created by Buddha. He didn’t even mention anything about an exclusive retreat for monks/nuns. Buddha believed that all men were equal and rejected the hierarchical system based on birth right or hierarchy. Social hierachies within temples are the unforunate by-products of monasticism. I’m certain that he would not approve of the structural system of novices, junior monks, senior monks, abbots, etc. because it would only result in internal conflict of power and control due to ambitions of certain individuals. The inventions of status and rank would also result in the death of humility. How many people have heard of an abbot doing his own laundry and helping to sweep up the temple courtyard?
Buddhist monks charge you for conducting funeral rites instead of the time honored way of giving them a token of appreciation. Today, even if the token of appreciation method is used, the quality of the funeral rite depends on your generosity. The poorer you are, the more short-cuts and mistakes there will be. So much so for reaping karma and detaching oneself from the material world. Thankfully, there are still true Buddhist monks around who genuinely believe in the concept of Dharma.
Back to the topic of Christianity, many of the Christians today are too fanatical in my opinion. Thanks to Saint Augustine (may he rot in hell), they have lost their respect for the religion's of other people. They are trying too hard to convert people to their “true” faith. Peer pressure, grand churches and gifted orators as pastors are used to convert lost souls to their faith. They are so successful that many of the Christians that I have spoken to don't seem to know what their religion is about. All they can describe to me is this warm abstract fuzzy feeling of love and forgiveness that they feel in church. To many of the born-again-evangelicals, questioning one’s faith is completely out of the question.
So to me, religion has been reduced to a shadow of its glorious past and many of its believers are following in the words of their ancestors rather than the word of God (if any).
To me religion is merely a social construct. Being an avid historian, I don’t believe in abstract concepts of divinity or miracles. As I mentioned before, 2000 years ago, a man who claimed to speak with God and spread warnings of doom was a prophet, but today, a man who does the same is said to suffer from schizophrenia or paranoid delusions. And our ancestors have a way of over-glorifying hear-say and great-deeds. For example, the ancient Greeks worshipped dinosaur bones as the bones of long dead heroes like Achilles, Hector and Hercules because they believed that heroes were larger than life.
Religion and the concept of hell were designed to inspire fear in evil-doers and motivate them into doing charitable, gracious and kind deeds in their lifetime. It aims to build a Utopia on Earth; unfortunately, people have a way of manipulating religion to suit themselves. Example would be the blatant use of fictional “divine origins” as a means to a king’s legitimate rule or one’s ability to perform extraordinary feats. E.g. The Holy Roman Emperor of Medieval Europe, The Divine Emperor of China and The demi-God Hercules (son of Zeus). Another example would be the blatant corruption of the Catholic faith by the Catholic Church, the primary example would be the “Sale of Indulgences”, where the church literally created certificates indicating that the holder would be sin-free in the eyes of the Church and therefore God. Somehow, God became secondary in comparison to the Church.
As you can see, the original tenants of religious belief have been lost over time due to flawed human interpretation. There is nothing wrong with religion it’s just how people interpreted it that becomes an issue! It is the people’s belief that gets corrupted with disillusions that we have created over time to comfort and cheat ourselves that made me write off religion for good. I don’t have a religion, but I think God (if any is around) is a little more discerning and forgiving than that. Let me inject some reason in “If I have done no evil, but just because I’m not a Christian (or Muslim for that matter), why do I deserve to go to hell?”
I question this more avidly in view that a believer is promised a place in heaven just because he kills a non-believer. This is what I define as my issue against the believers rather than the religion. This concept of Crusade/Jihad has been wrongly intepreted by believers. I believe the original intentions were to protect the faith, not to wipe out other faiths in a bloody and forceful manner. I'm sure God (if any) had a better sense of ethics than we do.
In today’s context, on occasions, belief has been reduced to the point of ridicule to me. That’s why I use the term Modern Christianity and Modern Buddhism. I will be using these 2 examples for my writing here.
We have anthropological studies, archaeology and written records deciphered by historians to tell us what the world was like in the past. Yet, I have met many Christians who still have to insist that the Bible is an infallible source of historical information. As a diehard historian, I’m really tempted to take off my slipper and slap them to death for their blind faith in a book that was NOT written by Christ or God himself, but from a cesspit of authors handpicked and compiled by the council of Nicea. I’m using the word cesspit because there are thousands of religious literature out there written by thousands of authors hundreds of years after the death of Christ. The creators of the bible merely picked out what suited their ideals and rejected unacceptable bits. E.g. The Bible mentioned that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but no one knows who Cain (their son) married. Ever wondered why? Draw up a family tree and you’ll realize that the only possibility would be that he either married his sister or his niece. That would be incest wouldn’t it? Naturally, the Church wouldn’t have that, so it was conveniently excluded.
When I ask many Christians or Catholics this question, their answer is always this mysterious “only God knows”. To me, God (if there’s one) gave us a brain; I think he meant us to use it with a little more discretion and common sense. Sometimes, people have really weird beliefs that leave me flabbergasted.
EXODUS 20:4-6 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
Tell me then, how do you classify a cross? Some have said that it is not a likeness of God, so the second commandment has not been violated. The original cross was depicted with the body of Christ on it. And since Christ is the son of God, he is an extension of God. So we’re back to square one. Some might argue that it is from the first testament and not very valid, all I’ll say is “it’s the same God we are talking about isn’t it?”
Christians aside, let me move on and attack Modern Buddhism. Ideally, Buddhist monks should shun the materialistic world, look at the Buddhism monks in Singapore, some drive around in a Benz and live in a condominium. Temples are becoming grand buildings designed by architects. The “life of self-denial and spiritual-enlightenment”, my ass. I'm not saying all Buddhists are like this, but it’s a growing trend in today's context. I think the term "embracing modernity" is a terrible excuse for the abandonment of old value of "humility".
Buddha preached about letting go of one’s material demands in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. As I mentioned in my previous post, if Buddha still had a body to flip and jump in, he would be positively bouncing in indignation in his grave and the degeneration of his teachings. There are thousands of Aunties and Uncles flocking to his temples to pray for luck at 4D and TOTO. Buddha’s teachings were never about him turning into a religious icon. It was the work of his disciples. I think even the preservation of his bodily remains as relics would have made him scream in frustration, if he weren’t beyond the demands of humanly emotions and not that at peace.
If he were still alive, he would be puking blood at the hierarchical system practiced by monasteries. It was NOT created by Buddha. He didn’t even mention anything about an exclusive retreat for monks/nuns. Buddha believed that all men were equal and rejected the hierarchical system based on birth right or hierarchy. Social hierachies within temples are the unforunate by-products of monasticism. I’m certain that he would not approve of the structural system of novices, junior monks, senior monks, abbots, etc. because it would only result in internal conflict of power and control due to ambitions of certain individuals. The inventions of status and rank would also result in the death of humility. How many people have heard of an abbot doing his own laundry and helping to sweep up the temple courtyard?
Buddhist monks charge you for conducting funeral rites instead of the time honored way of giving them a token of appreciation. Today, even if the token of appreciation method is used, the quality of the funeral rite depends on your generosity. The poorer you are, the more short-cuts and mistakes there will be. So much so for reaping karma and detaching oneself from the material world. Thankfully, there are still true Buddhist monks around who genuinely believe in the concept of Dharma.
Back to the topic of Christianity, many of the Christians today are too fanatical in my opinion. Thanks to Saint Augustine (may he rot in hell), they have lost their respect for the religion's of other people. They are trying too hard to convert people to their “true” faith. Peer pressure, grand churches and gifted orators as pastors are used to convert lost souls to their faith. They are so successful that many of the Christians that I have spoken to don't seem to know what their religion is about. All they can describe to me is this warm abstract fuzzy feeling of love and forgiveness that they feel in church. To many of the born-again-evangelicals, questioning one’s faith is completely out of the question.
So to me, religion has been reduced to a shadow of its glorious past and many of its believers are following in the words of their ancestors rather than the word of God (if any).
Different Versions of Hell- Part 1
Today, I'm just going to do a LONG post based on PICTURES with commentaries (taken from Wikipedia) about the different versions of hell. Please click on the links if you want to read more. If I have made any errors or you disagree with my bias, please send me an email.
We have all been taught at one point of time or another that evil souls will be condemn in hell forever. So what exactly is hell? No one knows for sure, when I say this, I meant, no one has reported back in a verfiable manner what hell is like. How many versions of hell are there? Many! I'll explore some here.
Greek Hell
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades
In this case, all of the dead have to pass through hell for judgement before they are reassigned to "a place of their deserving".
Ancient Egyptian Hell
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Ancient_Egypt
Taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hell.htm
The Egyptian belief in the afterlife is very unique in a sense. Like the Greeks, they believed in the Journey through the underworld towards Judgement. However, they demanded the preservation of the body as a means of entering the afterlife. Somehow, over time, money could help you cheat death in these rites- more money means better mummification, so your chances of surviving an eternity is higher; more money means more amulets to ensure that everything is in your favor; more money means more funeral texts to extol your non-existant virtues to the Gods. I think the Gods are more discerning than that, but humans always like to cheat themselves.
Christian Hell
Unfortunately, the christian concept of Hell is a mess. I humbly beg forgiveness for my sarcasm, I can't help it- the christian beliefs have evolved a LOT over the centuries till the point that it no longer follows God's word. According to Christ, Judgement Day will come later (lord know when) where the Angels will seperate the damned from the righteous and throw them into a furnance of fire. Until that day, the dead will remain, well, dead. There is no mention or description about where or what the "waiting" room is. And I wonder if I will die a second death there, or will I just be charred to a piece of crisp bacon, be healed and thrown back in to repeat the cycle for all eternity. That wasn't mentioned specifically as well.
In the Book of Relevation, Judgement Day somehow mutated into a cosmic battle between Satan and his minions versus the Angels. Everyone will wait in hades for Judgement.
Centuries later, Hippolytus of Rome created the impression that in hades, the righteous are happily anticipating judgement day, whist the damned are tormented by the sight of the "lake of unquenchable fire" into which they are destined to be cast into. Somehow, God decide through Hippolytus that the furnance wasn't big enough, so a massive lake of fire was more economical. Somehow, God became this evil tyrant that made you watch your torture device before tossing you into it. That is really worse than death to me.
Centuries later, Saint Augustine (I still don't know how a lecherous pervert like him became a saint) proposed the concept of Original Sin where "the unbaptized go to hell, including infants, albeit with less suffering than is experienced by those guilty of actual sins". Basically, all non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of their moral character. I'm not quite sure how the concept of less suffering will work out. Will I burn at a higher temperature, so I'm reduced to nothing faster? Or will I burn at a lower temperature, so its not so hot, but I take a longer time to be reduced to nothing?
By the medieval era, Gregory of Nyssa's concept of Purgatory was finalized and further elaborated on as a "state of painful purification of the saved after life".
Adapted from personal knowledge and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Christianity
Naraka of Buddhism
Buddhism has also evolved a lot over time. If Buddha still had a body to flip around in, he'll probably be tossing all over his grave. He created a philosophy that somehow mutated into people grovelling before statues of him today, begging for material wealth and blessings, the very things that he preached against.
I'm very certain that the Naraka was not a concept handed down by Guatama Buddha himself, but a belief created by his disciples. It was probably to make Buddhism more appealing to Chinese and Hindu converts.
Hindu Hell (Naraka)
I like this concept the most because it is realistic in its realization that all beings have at least ONE sin on their record. We are all flawed human beings aren't we...
I'll talk about Islamic and Taoist hell another time if I can't get guest posters.
We have all been taught at one point of time or another that evil souls will be condemn in hell forever. So what exactly is hell? No one knows for sure, when I say this, I meant, no one has reported back in a verfiable manner what hell is like. How many versions of hell are there? Many! I'll explore some here.
Greek Hell
The deceased entered the underworld by crossing the Acheron, ferried across by Charon, who charged an obolus (a small coin) for passage placed in the mouth of the deceased by pious relatives. Paupers and the friendless gathered for a hundred years on the near shore according to Book VI of Vergil's Aeneid. Greeks offered propitiatory libations to prevent the deceased from returning to the upper world to "haunt" those who had not given them a proper burial. The far side of the river was guarded by Cerberus, the three-headed dog defeated by Heracles (Roman Hercules). Passing beyond Cerberus, the shades of the departed entered the land of the dead to be judged.
The five rivers of the Realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate). Styx forms the boundary between the upper and lower worlds.
The first region of Hades comprises the Fields of Asphodel, described in Odyssey xi, where the shades of heroes wander despondently among lesser spirits, who twitter around them like bats. Only libations of blood offered to them in the world of the living can reawaken in them for a time the sensations of humanity.
Beyond lay an area which could be taken for a euphonym of Pluto, whose own name was dread. There were two pools, that of Lethe, where the common souls flocked to erase all memory, and the pool of Mnemosyne ("memory"), where the initiates of the Mysteries drank instead. In the forecourt of the palace of Hades and Persephone sit the three judges of the Underworld: Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus. There at the trivium sacred to Hecate, where three roads meets, souls are judged, returned to the Fields of Asphodel if they are neither virtuous nor evil, sent by the road to Tartarus if they are impious or evil, or sent to Elysium (Islands of the Blessed) with the "blameless" heroes.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades
In this case, all of the dead have to pass through hell for judgement before they are reassigned to "a place of their deserving".
Ancient Egyptian Hell
When the body died, parts of its soul known as ka (body double) and the ba (personality) would go to the Kingdom of the Dead. While the soul dwelt in the Fields of Aaru, Osiris demanded work as payback for the protection he provided. Statues were placed in the tombs to serve as substitutes for the deceased.
Arriving at one's reward in afterlife was a demanding ordeal, requiring a sin-free heart and the ability to recite the spells, passwords, and formulae of the Book of the Dead. In the Hall of Two Truths, the deceased's heart was weighed against the Shu feather of truth and justice taken from the headdress of the goddess Ma'at. If the heart was lighter than the feather, they could pass on, but if it were heavier they would be devoured by the demon Ammit.
Egyptians also believed that being mummified was the only way to have an afterlife. Only if the corpse had been properly embalmed and entombed in a mastaba, could the dead live again in the Fields of Yalu and accompany the Sun on its daily ride. Due to the dangers the afterlife posed, the Book of the Dead was placed in the tomb with the body as well as food, jewelry, and 'curses'.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Ancient_Egypt
The crimes of those who are condemned to hell consist of nothing more and nothing less than having acted against the divine world order established at the beginning of creation. Hence, they have excluded themselves from ma'at, while at the same time revealing themselves as agents of chaos. After death, they became forever reduced to a state of nonbeing., which was the chaotic state of the cosmos before creation. For them, there is no renewal and no regeneration of life, but only a second, definitive death...
In every respect, the fate of the damned is the opposite of that of the blessed... when the damned died, their flesh was torn away by demons and their mummy wrappings were removed so that their bodies were left to decompose. In the underworld that the blessed successfully navigate, their order of things is reversed, even to the extent that the damned have to walk upside down, eat their own excrement and drink their own urine. Their hands are tied behind their backs, often around stakes. Their heads and limbs are severed from their bodies and their flesh is cut off their bones. Their hearts are removed and their ba-souls are separated from their bodies, forever unable to return to them. They even loose their shadows, which were considered an important part of the ancient Egyptian being. They have no air and suffer from hunger and thirst, as they receive no funerary offerings. Worst of all, they are denied the reviving light of the sun god, who ignores them, even as they cry out load and wail when he passes them in the underworld at night.
Taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hell.htm
The Egyptian belief in the afterlife is very unique in a sense. Like the Greeks, they believed in the Journey through the underworld towards Judgement. However, they demanded the preservation of the body as a means of entering the afterlife. Somehow, over time, money could help you cheat death in these rites- more money means better mummification, so your chances of surviving an eternity is higher; more money means more amulets to ensure that everything is in your favor; more money means more funeral texts to extol your non-existant virtues to the Gods. I think the Gods are more discerning than that, but humans always like to cheat themselves.
Christian Hell
Unfortunately, the christian concept of Hell is a mess. I humbly beg forgiveness for my sarcasm, I can't help it- the christian beliefs have evolved a LOT over the centuries till the point that it no longer follows God's word. According to Christ, Judgement Day will come later (lord know when) where the Angels will seperate the damned from the righteous and throw them into a furnance of fire. Until that day, the dead will remain, well, dead. There is no mention or description about where or what the "waiting" room is. And I wonder if I will die a second death there, or will I just be charred to a piece of crisp bacon, be healed and thrown back in to repeat the cycle for all eternity. That wasn't mentioned specifically as well.
In the Book of Relevation, Judgement Day somehow mutated into a cosmic battle between Satan and his minions versus the Angels. Everyone will wait in hades for Judgement.
Centuries later, Hippolytus of Rome created the impression that in hades, the righteous are happily anticipating judgement day, whist the damned are tormented by the sight of the "lake of unquenchable fire" into which they are destined to be cast into. Somehow, God decide through Hippolytus that the furnance wasn't big enough, so a massive lake of fire was more economical. Somehow, God became this evil tyrant that made you watch your torture device before tossing you into it. That is really worse than death to me.
Centuries later, Saint Augustine (I still don't know how a lecherous pervert like him became a saint) proposed the concept of Original Sin where "the unbaptized go to hell, including infants, albeit with less suffering than is experienced by those guilty of actual sins". Basically, all non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of their moral character. I'm not quite sure how the concept of less suffering will work out. Will I burn at a higher temperature, so I'm reduced to nothing faster? Or will I burn at a lower temperature, so its not so hot, but I take a longer time to be reduced to nothing?
By the medieval era, Gregory of Nyssa's concept of Purgatory was finalized and further elaborated on as a "state of painful purification of the saved after life".
Adapted from personal knowledge and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Christianity
Naraka of Buddhism
Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell.Taken from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)
However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Buddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana.
The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Enlightenment until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering.
Buddhism has also evolved a lot over time. If Buddha still had a body to flip around in, he'll probably be tossing all over his grave. He created a philosophy that somehow mutated into people grovelling before statues of him today, begging for material wealth and blessings, the very things that he preached against.
According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned the average person's notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and the Buddha is solely a guide and teacher for the sentient beings who must tread the path of Nirvāṇa (Pāli: Nibbāna) themselves to attain the spiritual awakening called bodhi and see truth and reality as it is. The Buddhist system of insight and meditation practice is not believed to have been revealed divinely, but by the understanding of the true nature of the mind, which must be discovered by personally treading a spiritual path guided by the Buddha's teachings.Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
I'm very certain that the Naraka was not a concept handed down by Guatama Buddha himself, but a belief created by his disciples. It was probably to make Buddhism more appealing to Chinese and Hindu converts.
Hindu Hell (Naraka)
Early Vedic religion doesn't have a concept of Hell. Ṛg-veda mentions three realms, bhūr (the earth), svar (the sky) and bhuvas or antarikṣa (the middle area, i.e. air or atmosphere)). In later Hindu literature, especially the law books and Puranas, more realms are mentioned, including a realm similar to Hell, called naraka (in Devanāgarī: नरक). Yama as first born human (together with his twin sister Yamī) in virtue of precedence becomes ruler of men and a judge on their departure. Originally he resides in Heaven, but later, especially medieval traditions, mention his court in naraka.Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Hinduism
In the law-books (smṛtis and dharma-sūtras, like the Manu-smṛti) naraka is a place of punishment for sins. It is a lower spiritual plane (called naraka-loka) where the spirit is judged, or partial fruits of karma affected in a next life. In Mahabharata there is a mention of the Pandavas going to Heaven and the Kauravas going to Hell. However for the small number of sins which they did commit in their lives, the Pandavas had to undergo hell for a short time. Hells are also described in various Puranas and other scriptures. Garuda Purana gives a detailed account of Hell, its features and enlists amount of punishment for most of the crimes like a modern day penal code.
It is believed that people who commit sins go to Hell and have to go through punishments in accordance with the sins they committed. The god Yamarāja, who is also the god of death, presides over Hell. Detailed accounts of all the sins committed by an individual are kept by Chitragupta, who is the record keeper in Yama's court. Chitragupta reads out the sins committed and Yama orders appropriate punishments to be given to individuals. These punishments include dipping in boiling oil, burning in fire, torture using various weapons, etc. in various Hells. Individuals who finish their quota of the punishments are reborn in accordance with their balance of karma. All created beings are imperfect and thus have at least one sin to their record; but if one has generally led a pious life, one ascends to svarga, a temporary realm of enjoinment similar to Paradise, after a brief period of expiation in Hell and before the next reincarnation according to the law of karma.
I like this concept the most because it is realistic in its realization that all beings have at least ONE sin on their record. We are all flawed human beings aren't we...
I'll talk about Islamic and Taoist hell another time if I can't get guest posters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
