30 December 2013

The world that Jesus was born into

Around the era when Jesus was born, ...
  • Julius Caesar was assassinated by Brutus.  Cassius succeeded Caesar as the next emperor of Rome (44 BC).
  • Mark Antony and Octavian overthrows Cassius.  (42BC).
  • Octavian wins over Mark Antony, changes his name to Augustus, and becomes the next emperor.  (31BC).
Around this time, a man called Herod the Great (74BC - 4BC) lived.  Herod:
  •  sided with Cassius when he was in power, then Mark Antony, then changed sides to Octavian at the right times to be on the right side politically throughout his career years.
  • had a brother-in-law put in a good word for him such that Augustus installed him as the Roman client-king over Judea.
  • was bestowed the title "king of the Jews".  Consequently felt threatened when the Magi sought a different "king of the Jews".
  • was a "Jew" in the sense that John Hyrcanus had previously forced Idumeans to convert to Judaism; although, in terms of race, Herod was really an Idumean or an Edomite.
  • As "king of the Jews", Herod was to represent the Jews.  However, he also saw himself as a friend of the non-Jews, and allowed these people to have their temples in Jerusalem.  This is probably the right position politically, but it upset the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin since it was not enough Jewish representation for them.
  • Herod was heavily into construction, building ports and cities - for strength, for protection, and for economic advantage.
  • Married more than once; going for extra wives while previous wives were not yet dead or divorced.  (Adultery)
  • Charged his wife with adultery and sentenced her to death when he suspected that she had desire to dethrone him.
  • Wife's mother was executed without trial when she tried to retaliate.
Romans, at that time were:
  • brutal enforcers of their law.
  • tolerant of other people's religion.
  • demanded high taxes.
It was to this world that Jesus was born.  It was to this world that He said that He is "the way, the truth and the life" and promised  to take us to a better place that He has prepared for us if we believe in Him.

I thought that there are many characteristics in the world in the time of Jesus that has not really changed ... and is still prevalent today.  Jesus' promise is relevant to us now, as it was to the people of Jesus' time.

Do you think so?  Does it upset your world to believe in Jesus?  How?  Why?  Would you do it?

22 December 2013

Retiring

What happens when your job gets too tough?  When you get too old?

There has been talk in recent times in Australia to raise the retirement age to 70.  This is because people are living longer, and the average age of the population is getting higher.  There is no point having a high rate of unemployment and having older people living lives with less challenges if they are able to work.

On the other hand, as people's memories wane, as their eyesight become too weak to solder, as memories become too weak to do their jobs effectively, as they become too unfit to safely climb up roofs to pull cable, etc, perhaps raising the retirement age does not make sense.  As it is, people who lose their jobs after the age of 50 have a great difficulty finding another job.  So raising the retirement age wouldn't really help.  Instead, it would make it harder for the unemployed older people.  And social security would need to assist.

What do you think an appropriate solution to this problem might be?

As I pondered this question, I was drawn to a few side points that does not exactly answer the question, but adds to the thoughts on this issue:
  • In Numbers 8:23-26, Levites were told to be in service from 25-50.  Ie. a retirement age was set.  Some discussion on this study suggested that retirement is Biblical, even if some Christian leaders do not believe in retirement.
  • The Bible's talk of work vs resting, saving vs. giving, service vs. retirement seems to imply both as a part of living, according to Bob.  It is all a matter of stewardship.
  • In a particular area of service, ie. school-teaching - about 30% leave their preferred profession after about 3 years.  Some reasons cited for this high drop-out rate were that they lost the passion for this after children have worn them out and other attractive offers come.  People need to have the right preparation and support in order to stay with their vocation.
Do you think so?  What do you think the right balance is?  How do you think one can be motivated, or should be motivated, to stay with one's vocation?  For how long?  Is there really an issue with retirement?

17 December 2013

Economic cycle

News about the coming closure of the Holden brand in Australia was sad to many Australians, especially their own employees.  But it is said that this is something that has been on the cards for a while.  What led to this situation, though?  Can we really analyse this?

Holden became part of General Motors (GM) some time ago.  GM preserved the Holden brand because of its popularity in Australia.  GM actually carries 15 brands.  Australia has been carrying the Holden brand as well as Chevrolet, HSV and Opel.  Dropping the Holden brand does not mean that GM is pulling out of Australia, but it is a smack to the Australian perception because of how Australians regard Holden to be their home-grown product.

News media have been reasoning out the economic side of the equation.  With the high value of the Australian dollar, it has made sense to Australia to send its manufacturing industry off-shore.  It is cheaper that way.  However, this can come as a vicious cycle.  Without manufacturing, the cost of importing parts can become expensive.  Then, if Australia spends more money importing manufactured goods from overseas compared to its GDP, the value of the dollar and the value of the GDP will drop.  But this is forward-looking.  Does it make sense to continue manufacturing locally today when the cost is high?  To restart and rebuild manufacturing plants after closing them down is also a great cost.  Especially to those who lose their jobs.

I see that this issue does not lie with manufacturing alone.  It is the same with the building industry.

Presently, the cost of real-estate has soared quickly.  There was a slow period last year, but a drop in the interest rates and scare tactics through advertising and news broadcasts has pushed the cost to be high.  Many people are buying now, as they are afraid that they will not be able to afford the cost when it becomes higher.

Building of roads and rail services also pushed people to move houses and buy and sell their properties.

A lot of this has been due to anticipation of population growth in Sydney, especially in the area of Western Sydney.  And while the dollar is high and Australia is viewed as a rich country, this is attracting immigrants to this country.

But what if the dollar fell in value?  What if the job market became worse (as it seems to be becoming) as inflation rises (because of the rising housing cost)?  All that capital invested into housing could leave the city having many unoccupied homes.  Shopping malls not having enough customers for retailers to rent stalls.  Then all that investment in anticipation of a rising population would be Australia's downfall.

Now, I am not saying that Australia should not build.  If the population rises as it seems to be, not building can be a downfall, as the congestion and the strain increases.  The nation needs to plan in advance.

But plan in which direction?  How can the national leaders know?  They can look at the graphs that map the trend, but the trend is not dictated by the graphs - the trend can go the other way.  How can anybody know which way to go?

What do you think?  How would you plan?  Does God have anything to do with our future?

11 December 2013

Happiness, Gratitude

"Happiness does not make us grateful; Gratefulness makes us happy".  These profound words by Miya Goodrich are thought provoking.

She shares her insights from a life of alcohol, lack of sleep, depression and chaos.  She was later diagnosed to have breast cancer.  That realisation woke her up to appreciate her life more before she no longer had life.

She wrote "I think sometimes in life we walk around with the illusion we’re in control. To some degree we are, but when faced with an illness you can very quickly be brought to your knees."

I think she is right.  It does frustrate us to realise that we are not in control, but life is like that.  In my opinion, we need God because we don't have control over the situations and circumstances around us.  I do not know if Goodrich believes in God though.

She also said that "we have a tendency to take life for granted."

I agree with this point also.  This is why we feel inadequate when we are sick, or poor, or hit with calamities and disasters that we cannot handle.  This is another reason we need God.

When we cease to take things for granted, when we realise that we do not deserve anything in life, it is at these times that we feel grateful for the blessings and the life that we have been given.  And we can be grateful for it.  But when we take everything for granted and are happy because of it, then we feel sad when we lose it.

I have two friends who both got distinctions for a subject that we did together.  One was happy.  The distinction was above her expectations.  The other was sad.  He thought that he must have done badly in the final assessment component for him to not have had a better grade.  They both got distinctions!

I think it is a matter of perspective.  Don't you?

What do you believe?  Does your outlook on life give you much gratefulness and happiness?  What do you look for in life?  Do you take health and happiness for granted?  Is God in the picture for you?

04 December 2013

Nudging

How do you get people to do what you want them to do?  Or what they should do, even without you?

Lawton, in a recent issue of New Scientist calls this technique "nudging".

A famous nudge is at the urinals of the airport in Amsterdam.  A picture of a fly is etched into each urinal.  With something to aim for, men have been urinating better than they did in the past.  This reduced the amount of work and the cost of cleaning the toilets.

Some other nudges noted in the article are:
  • Motivating people to vote by telling them that their neighbours are voting;
  • Similarly, motivating people to save power by citing how many dollars their neighbours are saving;
  • Placing the brands of groceries that supermarkets want to sell at eye level and at check-outs;
  • Setting the default in forms to be the choice you wish people to take - some people will choose a non-default option, but many won't bother
Do you find nudging to be manipulative?  Do you think your freedom to choose has been reduced because others have made part of that choice for you?

Lawton says that people generally have two paths of consideration.  One is to choose quickly and make the choice that seems right quickly, or to take a longer time deliberating and chose more carefully.  In this age of haste and lack of energy to consider carefully, most people are generally inclined to make the quick choice.  What seems right is often chosen, even if it isn't really right.

Would you fall for that kind of choice?  What if your life depended on it?

The easy choice is to choose what everybody else is choosing.  But that choice can be the choice that leads to death.  What would you choose then?

26 November 2013

Culture is not your friend

A definition of the word "culture" that I learned is that it is "what we do and how we behave in order to fit in the society that we live in".  It seems normal, based on that definition, to treat culture as a friend.  After all, it is the unwritten code of conduct that tells us what is acceptable and what isn't.

My reading today told me otherwise.  Knowledgeoftoday.org quoted Plato to have said "those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses".  It thinks that culture is a limiting factor that stops us from thinking on our own accord.  Culture tells us that we are not important.  Culture tells us to go to school, get a job, get a degree, retire at a certain age, etc, regardless of whether we want to or not.

Do you think so?  Is culture a necessary evil, or an unnecessary one?  Or is it good?

Knowledgeoftoday.org also quotes these other comments about school - the place where we learn our culture -

  • "School is the advertising agency which tells you that you need the society as it is."  Ivan Illich
  • "When Students cheat on exams, it's because our School System values grades more than Students value learning."  Neil deGrasse Tyson
 They reckon that schools condition children to think that:
  • Truth comes from Authority
  • Intelligence is the ability to remember and repeat
  • Accurate memory and repetition is rewarded
  • Non-compliance is punished
  • Conform: intellectually and socially
Do you agree?  What does school and education mean to you?  Is there room for creativity or crime?  Is conforming to culture a bad thing to do?

Where does God fit into this?  Is God against culture?  Is culture against God?  Should we obey God rather than culture, or culture rather than God?

21 November 2013

Taxpayer funded mosque

Should a mosque be built in Athens?  Why?  Should the public pay for it?  Why?  Why not the people who want the mosque instead of the public?

A blogpost of BareNakedIslam reflects the tension on both sides of this question.

On the one hand, there are about 500,000 Muslims living in city of Athens.  The city does not presently have a mosque.  Previous attempts to build one encountered opposition from the public, even when rich overseas Arabs wanted to fund it.  The government promised to build a mosque in 2006, but has yet to deliver.  The Muslims are threatening violence if a mosque were not built for them.

On the other hand, builders have not successfully brought their mosque-building projects to completion because of public opposition.  Most of the society is Greek Orthodox.  The Muslims who have come to live in Athens are mostly illegal immigrants.  The country is struggling with economic problems and has been for the last 6 years.  Why should the government be pressured to build a mosque for these Muslims given the present circumstances?

Should illegal immigrants have the right to make such demands from the governments of their host countries?  Should they not be grateful for what they already have, instead of threatening violence if they are not given more?

What do you think?  Can there be a peaceful resolution to this tension?  Can Muslims and Greek Orthodox live happily together?

17 November 2013

Low class dogs

It was amusing to read that Louis Vuitton pulled out of sponsoring a "save the street dogs" program because of the image.

Apparently, the famous fashion label had donated some items to be auctioned at a charity fund-raiser.  The cause was to save the street dogs of Singapore.  LV pulled out from their support when they realised what kind of mongrels roamed the streets of Singapore.  They seemed to have been turned off when they realised that these dogs were "low classed", and did not fit the image that LV would like to uphold.

What do you feel about this?

Isn't this the way of big business?  Aren't sponsorships and good deeds efforts to get publicity to help boost sales?  Is nothing done out of altruism, but with the ulterior motive of increasing sales margins?

The movie "the Climb" depicts this kind of attitude.  Mack, the owner of the chain-store Mackie's, was persuaded by the public to open a store at the south end of town.  This ended up taking a long time to happen, as Mack's right hand man and a share-holder saw it to be bad for business.  However, they favoured sponsoring two men to climb a mountain in Chile as it was good publicity.  (In the end, Mack had to make good of his promise for the sake of credibility.)

What do you think?  Is profit always the driving factor?  Should it be?  Where does kindness come in?  Does everyone always just look out for himself/herself without caring about the rest of the world?

Where does God fit into this picture?

13 November 2013

Modern Gentleman

Mark Merrill lists eight things that he believes every father should teach his son:

  1. Be a gentleman.
  2. Honour parents.
  3. Respect women.
  4. Have integrity.
  5. Be responsible.
  6. Work hard.
  7. Love others.
  8. Love God.
Would you agree with his list?  Why or why not?  How about the order?

(Personally, I think that "love God" should be #1, and "love others" should be #2.  My reason is Jesus' words in Matthew 22:36-40.  I think Mark's other points are relevant also, but those two points should come first.  The other six points are kind of contained within these two, but the specific application to gentlemen need to be taught.)

Should all men be gentlemen?  What do women expect?  What does society expect?

Many say that chivalry is dead.  Sometimes they say this jokingly.  Sometimes they say this lamenting the good old days when men were more gentlemanly.  But John Picciuto points out that women's expectations have changed also.  No longer do they expect to be invited out to dinner or for men to get to know them deeply in this age of 140-character sms and tweets.  So when men are being nice, they can be easily misunderstood as being interested in a big way.

Do you think so?

How can we avoid such misunderstandings these days?  Shouldn't men be chivalrous anymore?

What do you think?  Why?

11 November 2013

Permissable conversation

The headlines in the Sunday Telegraph today talked about sportsmen who had converted to Islam.  Apparently, these failing athletes were looking for hope in religion after certain failures.  One of their Muslim buddies convinced them to try Islam.  They are giving it a go, to the extent of praying barefoot in the mosque.

So, it is permissible to talk about Islam to fellow sports stars, and to bring them to the mosque.  It even makes news front-page headlines!

Do Christians have similar freedom?

I learned last year that a certain Christian aid organisation in Australia does not allow one to talk about one's faith, unless the client starts the conversation.  Tonight, I learned that an independant Christian health organisation also has a similar policy.  This takes me by surprise, since Australia previously has a reputation of being a "Christian" country.  One would imagine that staff in known Christian organisations in a developed country with relatively good freedom of speech and religion would be allowed to tell others about Jesus.  No?

Is it fair that Muslims may have converts and make headlines that way, while Christians may not?

Or maybe I am understanding the picture wrong?

Perhaps it was headlines because the Muslims were sports stars?  Perhaps Christian organisations are just forbidden to push their faith, but may share what they believe more gently?

How would you feel if people tried to force you to convert?  Against your will?  Or just by telling you true facts in a convincing way?  Would you argue against the truth?

What if we were all doomed for hell and judgement unless somebody gave us the opportunity to receive salvation from a reliable source?  Would you pass up the opportunity to learn about that reliable source?

Or, if you knew that your best friends and family were doomed for hell and judgement unless you told them how they may receive salvation?  Would you with-hold yourself from telling them what would save them?

Why is it that we can talk about sex, death, aging, politics and most things under the sun, but talking about Jesus is taboo in so many countries?

What do you think?  Is it because Christians are weak and afraid to be laughed at?  Or just unloving?  Or is it because they have a message that the world wishes to shut out?

Why?

30 October 2013

Do you believe in the Devil?

Justice Scalia surprised the New York Magazine by saying that he believes that the Devil is real.  Do you believe that the Devil is real too?

Apparently the interviewer doesn't.  It seems that the interviewer was surprised that any learned people today would believe in the devil.  So Justice Scalia had to explain himself.

He has read the Screwtape Letters.  He has read the Bible.  He believe that the Devil is alive and deceptive and continues to try to trick people away from the ways of the true and righteous God.

What do you believe?  Is it folklore to believe in the Devil?  Is it superstition?  Is it a concept from the old days that we no longer need today?  Should the devil be confined to the horror genre of fiction, and not be treated seriously?

What about the Bible?  Should the Bible be treated as fiction too?

Why do you believe what you do?

21 October 2013

The name Allah

Does the word "Allah" meant to be exclusively for Muslim use?  Or is it open for anybody in the world to use?  What do you think?

Apparently, this debate has resurrected in Malaysia.  I do not understand why Malaysian Muslims which to reserve that word for themselves instead of sharing it.

Apparently, it is only in Malaysia that this debate happens.  Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and other countries are okay for the word "Allah" to be used by non-Muslims.  And the etymology of the word shows that the word has been used for centuries even before Mohammad was born.  Historically and linguistically, it is not a word that is exclusively Islamic.

However, there are also issues like "blasphemy" - misusing the name of God, and "confusion" - people thinking that another god is being referred to when the same name is used.  I don't see a problem with these issues.  I understand that the names of Hindu gods are used by the Nepali, the names of Greek gods are used by Italians, etc, among cultures that share the same mythology.  But I appreciate that other people might.

I see the calls of the Perkasa leader to ban the Alkitab in Malaysia, and calling the Christians as ungrateful to be quite extreme, even so.  If there is freedom of belief and respect for the fact that the word is not exclusively an Islamic one, then there is no abuse and no need for "retaliation".

I think that people should be better informed and more accepting of each other than what that speech says.

What do you think?  Is this a provocative issue?  Should it be?  What does the word "Allah" mean to you?

14 October 2013

Patience

"Can you wait for God's timing" was the challenging question that came from my devotion time this morning.

The Bible passage I looked at was 1 Samuel 26.  David and Abishai crept into Saul's tent and stole his spear and water bottle.  David did not kill Saul at this point.  It was against his conscience to do so.

However, David is a man who has killed before.  And he was a hunted man.  He could have changed his situation for the better if he had taken this opportunity to kill his enemy.

This wasn't his first opportunity either.  David had previously spared Saul's life in 1 Samuel 24, while Saul was taking a leak.

David was prepared to wait it out for an indefinite period, knowing that Saul would meet his demise at some stage, and he would take over as king then.  He did not need to rush into that.  He did not need to end his suffering early.  He would just wait, even if it was years before it happened.

Are we like this?

As I think about my aging, and what I wish to do before I became too old, I realise that I am not always patient.

As I think about the many roles I play, and the rush from one task to another, I think that I am often in a hurry.  I do not wish to remain at University for too long.  I do not wish to be idle for too long.

And when I think that Jesus is coming back again, I too wish that it would happen soon enough before the Church went into too much suffering.

How unlike the early church, who was willing to suffer knowing with certainty that it will meet Jesus!

How about you?  Are you looking forward to meeting your Master?  Can you wait for it to happen?  Or are you in a hurry to get there?

How do you feel about hard times?  Are you patient, allowing your suffering to prolong?  Or do you wish to end it quickly?

07 October 2013

Comparing two cities

What thoughts would pass through your mind if you were needing to relocate to another culture?  Would you be filled with excitement or apprehension?

The play Manakottai reflected on these questions in a humourous way.

The play contrasted two families.  One family with two children were leaving Chennai, India for Sydney, Australia.  Another family had one child, and was leaving Sydney, Australia for Chennai, India.  Both families transit at Changi Airport, Singapore for a time.

Both families are Tamil.  They both have a teenage daughter.  The family of four also had a younger son.  The parents have lived in Chennai before.

The family going to Sydney looked forward to a culture where the mother has the freedom not to be housebound.  The family returning to Chennai was looking forward to a culture where the mother did not have to spend hours in traffic driving, and could concentrate more on cooking Indian dishes for her family.

The family going to Sydney was looking forward to higher wages.  The family going to Chennai was looking forward to a lower cost of living.

The family going to Sydney was looking forward to less congested housing.  The family going to Chennai was looking forward to more connectedness.  We are able to laugh at the fact that the family coming from Sydney had a doctor in the neighbourhood but did not know it.

One of the issues that confronted me were the teenage daughters.  The one who had gotten used to the Sydney environment did not want to return to her parents' homeland.  She thought it embarrassing to have to dress up in Indian clothes and have a plaited hairstyle instead of wearing shorts and having her hair dyed red.  She did not like the idea of living in a city where there were power outages every 15 minutes with high humidity.  She preferred to be with the friends she had come to connect with in Sydney.

The lass from Chennai too loved her friends in Chennai.  She loved that place in spite it being so different from Sydney.

Are we like this?  We love our friends and our conveniences, and do not wish to leave?  Especially after experiencing our adolescence with these peers?

How would you contrast these cultural differences?  Would you look forward to change, or prefer to be comfortable in the environment you are used to?  Why do people undergo the stresses of such changes in our global society these days?

How would you feel if you were forced to leave the environment you have become used to, and be expected to live in a different one?


04 October 2013

Arrested at a library

Ross was online with his notebook at the science fiction section of a San Francisco library when the police arrested him.  He apparently had posted a question on a forum using his real name.  He quickly changed to a pseudonym, but his "error" was enough to catch the attention of the police.  The police had been looking for him because of some computer hacking, narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities.

How closely do the police watch what happens on the internet?  How quickly can they act on this information?  There are millions of routers on the internet, and millions more hosts.  Each host may have several channels of data streams going simultaneously.  Most of these are encrypted, especially if they run across wireless networks as public wi-fi services are.  Even with the help of software to filter out keywords, I think it is impossible to track everything.  Especially in a matter of minutes.

I am amazed to realise that internet traffic can be policed so quickly.  We know that information stored on public servers such as Gmail is not private, as Google and the police have the ability to search these.  But for them to find anything quickly seemed unlikely to me - until I read about Ross' arrest.

What do you think?  Do police, hackers, data miners, etc. have the ability to track information that quickly?  Or was finding Ross a fluke that happened in the police's favour?

In any case, the story reminds me that the Bible tells us to "be sure your sin will find you out".  Do you think that is true?

Even if one can elude the police who has finite knowledge, it would be impossible to hide from God, who knows everything.

So what can we do?  How can we handle our sin?  Please share what you think.  Thank you.

30 September 2013

Political statistics

Some friends told me about drug rehabilitation centers last night.  Among their comments was the fact that they think the government are not the best people to administer such centers.

Their logic goes is as follows.  Drug addicts look for rehab.  The government looks for statistics.  The government do not really care about the people.  They care about looking good to the community.  The statistics look better of the numbers are larger.  It does not matter to them if the drug addicts go back for rehabilitation many times.  So long that they do not report that these are the same people, their statistics for the numbers that have passed their doors and receive aid would look better.

These friends think that the church would do a better job with the rehab centers.  Churches look for changed lives.  Church would call on God prayerfully to help the people who need help.  Church would want people to meet Jesus, who can give people deliverance and new life.

Would you agree?  Why or why not?

In what ways do churches succeed where governments do not?  In what ways do churches fail?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

25 September 2013

Positive parenting

A few of the tips on parenting that I learned are listed below:
  • Say it positively, eg. encourage "indoor voice" instead of "do not shout".  Say "tidy your room" rather than "your room is messy".
  • Encourage and reward good behaviour.
  • Explain consequences of bad behaviour.  Implement those consequences.
  • As much as possible, the consequences must be logically connected to the offence.
  • A "stop" instruction must be obeyed immediately.  A "go" instruction may be repeated after 5 seconds, but no further follow up.
  • No spanking.  Rather, send the child to "quiet time" where he can think about what he did wrong, or to "time out" - a safe isolated area.
  • "Time out" is a more positive name than "naughty spot".
What do you think about such a parenting style?  Has it worked for you?

Did our parents do it wrongly?

Is the style of parenting related to culture?

What about the Bible?  Is positive parenting Biblical?  Why did the Bible command some "thou shalt not ..." instead of using these "positive parenting" techniques?  Did God get it wrong?

What has been your experience?  What do you think?

18 September 2013

Is it fair or sexist or neither?

Tony Abbott, the new Prime Minister of Australia, has chosen who he wants to be on his front-bench team in Parliament.  Many have noticed that he only has one woman on that team, and commented on it.

Some seem to think of him as sexist and old-school, to have so few women on the team.

I see the opposite, though.  Isn't it that those who think so the sexist ones?

I mean, Mr Abbott may have chosen his team based on the merit or reputation or credibility of those people.  As the Prime Minister, he would want people that he trusts in those positions.  He shouldn't be forced to think about the gender of his team-mates in the course of choosing his team, should he?  That the team-member is a man or a woman should be a minor detail - rather who they are and what they can do are the important aspects.

Maybe it is those who think in terms of the gender who are the sexist ones.

Maybe, if Tony were less sexist, more women would end up on his team since he regards these people as the ones with the merit, reputation and credibility.  Maybe not.  I am not saying that women are not trustworthy for these roles.  Just understanding that only one woman was chosen this time.  And that Tony should be allowed to make this choice without having it based on gender.

What do you think?  Is it sexual discrimination, or lack of sexual discrimination, that the ratio of men:women on the front bench ended up being what it is?  Does it matter?  Why or why not?

11 September 2013

7 things women should know about relationships

A list I saw in the "Relevant" magazine said that women should know the following things about their potential partners:
  • Your love isn't going to change him.  Love him for who he is - not who you wish him to be.  Otherwise, you are going to be disappointed.
  • Men want to feel needed.  He won't be there for you if you don't need him.
  • He already has a mother.  You don't need to be a second one to him.
  • Look for a life-time commitment.  Not just one that gets fleeting attention.
  • Manipulation will sour the relationship.  Eventually.
  • Men are not mind-readers.  Tell him what you want him to know.  Tell him directly.
  • He is not your last chance.  There is likely to be others.
Does the list seem pretty obvious to you?  Do you think it applies for all women?

What do you think women should know about men?  Is this list complete?

I see that this list emphasises honesty and commitment.  I like that in boy-girl relationships.  Do you?

What should guys look for in a girl?  Why?

03 September 2013

Secular vs. scripture

I noticed a few areas where the values of society is different from what the scripture says.  I suppose this is why Christians talk about the difference between sacred and secular, between the Church and the world.  Let me list a few of these differences, as I remember them tonight:
  • Scriptures advise us to make our money slowly.  The world wishes for instant profit.
  • People want to keep their riches for themselves.  The Bible says we should remember to share with the poor.
  • Society says to put "me" first.  Look after number one.  Do what "I" want.  It is all about me and for me.  Scriptures says to put God first.  We are to honour Him.
  • We are taught to think positively.  We can do it.  Scriptures tell us to think humbly.  God gave me the strength.
  • Many people think that it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you don't hurt anyone, and so long that you don't get caught.  The Bible tells us to live more uprightly than this.  Be holy, as God is holy.
Can you add to this list?

What does this mean to you?  Would you follow after society's values?  Or Scriptures?

How do you reconcile the differences?  How do you hold them in tension?

Has the church gotten it wrong?  Or has society gotten it wrong?  What do you think?

29 August 2013

Not translatable

Can you think of anything you wish to express that anybody else would not be able to pick up exactly what you mean?

If it is an emotion, then empathy goes a long way in understanding another.

In language, most words translate across to other languages, although there are many exceptions to this rule.  Some languages have words that other languages do not.  Some have words to express tenses, whereas others express tenses as prefixes, suffixes, or not at all.

Huffington Post listed 11 words that do not translate, but I know a few more to add to the list.  I also know that languages change over time, and it is impossible to keep a current list of words in all languages.

Are there other things that do not translate well?

Have you wondered how the words spoken by politicians in democratic countries are often represented more negatively than what the politicians probably mean?

Are there words that capture what people think of Miley Cyrus' raunchy act?

Can guys really understand what girls feel?  (I'm sure they can, most of the time - they are equally human, after all, but maybe girls may have some emotions guys do not understand.)

What of cross-cultural miscommunications?  Things your spouse may not understand because he/she was raised up differently?

What else?

What do you think?

24 August 2013

Spiritual awakening

Soulseeds reckons that there are 12 signs of spiritual awakening.  His blog lists these as

"
1. An increased tendency to let things happen rather than make them happen.
2. Frequent attacks of joy, unexplained smiling and random bursts of laughter.
3. Feelings of being closely connected with others and nature.
4. Frequent overwhelming, almost dizzying, episodes of appreciation.
5. A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than from fears based on past experience
6. An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
7. A loss of ability to worry.
8. A loss of desire for conflict.
9. A loss of interest in taking things personally.
10. A loss of appetite for drama and judgment.
11. A loss of interest in judging yourself.
12. Prone to give love without expecting anything in return.
"

Do you think so?  Have you experienced spiritual awakening yourself?  Do you think spiritual awakening is good or bad?  Why?

Does spiritual awakening come from self or from God or both?  How?

What do you think?  Please share.  Thanks.

17 August 2013

What is "fatwa"?

"Some people use the term to mean an Islamic death sentence imposed upon a person the word "fatwa" is an Arabic word, and it literally means "opinion"."  This seems to be a key point according to the Wikipedia article on this subject.

The opening paragraph of that article said that "in Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar".

So it seems that the world has different opinions about how seriously to take fatawa.  ("Fatawa" is the plural of "fatwa".)

I was drawn to this subject when somebody pointed out on Twitter that some have used fatwa to exploit Syrian women.  It sounded to me that people were taking words beyond what the Koran said, and interpreting the meaning to justify themselves in doing nasty things.

I think self-justification is wrong ... but very human.  It is in our nature to want to think that we are good, when we are actually sinful.  I found it assuring to find another person also expressing that fatawa need not be taken as law - they should be read in context of the background and culture of the mufti scholar who puts it together.

Some fatwa are hard for me to believe, eg. that a curse will be on people who take photographs, except for reason of necessity.  What do you think about such rules?

Do you think people understand the Scriptures in ways to justify their own actions?  The Quran?  The Bible?  What do the Scriptures actually mean?  How does God really expect us to behave?  What does He want us to believe?  Are there expectations and understandings that transcend the boundaries of culture?

What do you believe?

11 August 2013

Defecting from religion

Why do people give up their faith?  Why do they change from one faith to another?  From having a faith to not having one?  Or from not believing in God to believing in God?

Then, does one remain with one's convictions?  Or does one change one's mind after a matter of weeks, or months, or years later?

http://learnislam1.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/defecting-from-religion-new-trend.html carries some insights into this question.  It describes such changes as a "new trend".  It tells about people who have been dissatisfied with church.  Some of the reasons for feeling dissatisfied has been
  • unequal treatment
  • not agreeing with policy
  • feeling confused about what to believe
  • needs not met
  • expectations not met
  • did not feel God close to one
  • not happy
How should church change so to address these issues?

Should church change to suit the people?  Or should people change to suit the church?  How about changing to be more like God, in spite of what the church thinks?

How about changing to fit in with what God expects, rather than what church or religion expects?

Does defecting from church to a religion address these issues?  Or will one still end up feeling dissatisfied after a while?

What do you think?

04 August 2013

Real faith

Hement Mehta told us Rachael's story.

Rachael is the daughter of an apologist.  She was taught the Bible while she was young.  She knew the words to say to defend the Bible.  Her father was proud to show off what she knew.

Then one day, she asked herself a question she could not answer.  From that point on, she turned her back on the faith that her father had taught her.

Did she do the right thing?  What do you think?

Is she right to turn her back on what her father had taught her?  Should she stay believing in that if it had been wrong?

What if her father had taught her something else, and she left that for the God of the Bible?

What makes it right?  What makes it wrong?  Does Rachael have enough power to discern?  Does anybody?

Is truth relative to a person's perception?  Or is there only one truth, and that is God's; we only need to agree on what that truth is?

What do you believe?




28 July 2013

Legalise sodomy

Recent news have speculated that the Australian state of New South Wales may consider legalising same-sex marriages.

How do you feel about this?  Do you welcome such news?  Or does it fill you with dread?

Some of my other recent reading calls 'homosexuality' by a much stronger word - 'sodomy'.  Apparently, sodomy was considered as a social and religious evil for many centuries.  The Bible calls this kind of act as 'sin'.

However, homosexuality has been popularised through media, and people against this concept have been labled as 'homophobic'.  They have been considered as narrow-minded, and not inclusive in their thinking.

It seems that rejecting the act of sodomy has been equated with the rejection of the people who practice such behaviour.

Actually, the church has struggled, but seems to have understood that it is to love the people, but to reject the sin.  The sin is not to be practiced, but people can be forgiven.  Such is my understanding of where the church stands anyway.

What do you think?  Where would you stand in this debate?  Is homosexuality sodomy?  Why are more and more nations accepting of same-sex marriages if sodomy is bad?

Have we been tricked by the 'world's most successful brain-washing'?

How can we change our course if the present course is wrong?

23 July 2013

The Good Samaritan

Luke 10:25-37 is a parable that Jesus told to explain love to a lawyer.  In a nutshell, the story is about a man who was beaten up by robbers and left for dead.  A priest and a Levite passed by the wounded man but offered no help.  They may have been in a hurry and did not want to be contaminated with the blood of the wounded.  Then a Samaritan passed by.  The Samaritans were considered as racial outcasts by the Jews.  Yet this Samaritan took time to bandage the wounds of the man, put him on his donkey, took him to an inn keeper for care, and promised to pay for the man's care - even though he did not know the man.  He did it out of pity.  Pity that was translated to love.

When I read this story again tonight, I remembered that I had a similar experience to this wounded man, although not quite so bad.

I was crossing the road on foot one day, when an army truck hit me.  I fell, then picked myself up and managed to get to the other side of the road.  I did not realise I was bleeding until people around told me to stop walking.  Most people just continued on their way, just like the priest and the Levite in the Bible story.  Then a man stopped his car and offered to take me to hospital.  He did not worry that I may mess up his car, as some other people might have.  The man was a Muslim, if the clues from the stickers in his car were to be believed.

As I remembered this experience, I thought of the animosity that some Muslims and Christians have against each other.  Is this similar to what the Jews used to have towards the Samaritans?  Yet, as used by God, kindness does get shown.

In this holy month of Ramaddan, while the Muslims fast during the day, let the Christians pray for them - that there be love and kindness, and that God is seen to be real.

Will you join me to in such prayer?  Why or why not?  What specifically would you pray for?

May God bless you in your prayers too.

21 July 2013

Flattery

"Flattery" is the act of praising someone; often in an insincere way because you wish to gain something from the act.  This is the "meaning given by the Cambridge dictionary.

Do you flatter?  Do you receive flattery?  Why?  How do you respond to it?

Joshua Rogers shared about his experience with flattery in his blog.  He was out with his friend, Holly, when the conversation led him to give her a list of compliments.  Upon receiving these compliments, Holly asked Joshua about his motives.  "... are you interested in me?" was her question.

Joshua, in his naivety, explained that he sincerely believed his words when he paid those compliments.  Holly, however, did not want to be flattered that way, unless the man was interested in her.

Would you call it flattery in such a situation?

Why wouldn't a woman like to receive compliments?

How can a man express himself without being interested?

I wish I understood the dating game better in my years before getting married.  I would befriend people because I like to be friendly ... but never expecting the friendships to develop into anything intimate.  Perhaps some women friends might have wished that I was after relationships that were deeper.  Perhaps they weren't.  Maybe the things that I had said were taken as flattery - sincere ones or otherwise.  Maybe not.

What are the rules of the dating game?  Does every couple understand those rules the same way?  Can one be honest and understood all the time?  When should one wish for relationships that are deeper, and when should one not?

What rules or guidelines would you advise the inexperienced?

Please share.

15 July 2013

Table 21

A game show was the vehicle used by the movie 'Table 21' to communicate its message.

Vivaan and Siya are the married couple in this story. Siya wins a competition and is awarded with a trip to Fiji.  There, the couple celebrates their fifth wedding anniversary.

Their package included a dinner hosted by a rich Mr Khan. Mr Khan also hosts a reality show that is telecasted on the web.  The couple is invited to be the contestants on this programme.

The contestants need to answer eight questions truthfully and perform a dare at the end of each question. They are given huge rewards if they are able to do this.  However, they need to play the game to its end. The penalty for lying is death.

At first the questions are easier ones about their relationship, and the dares, though difficult and humiliating, are more harmless.  Later, the questions become deeper, and the dares lie in the realm of being criminal.

Mr Khan reveals some of their deeper secrets, as Vivaan's fear of seeing blood and Siya's affair.  He also exposes their willingness to commit murder; either because of fear or for the sake of self preservation.

In the end the game turns out to be Mr Khan's retaliation for the way his son was 'ragged' during his school days. The movie carries a strong message against 'ragging' - or bullying, as how I would say it in my country.

However, to me, the movie reveals more than just that.  It also speaks loudly about our human nature. We have fears, and we have the ability to manipulate, cheat, lie, and maybe even murder to get over those fears.  We want to have a comfortable and easy life and to be seen as strong and popular, and we can prey on the weak to boost our morale.  Much to the detriment of those around us.  We possibly reap the consequence of our actions also.

Do you think so? Is this what human nature is like?  What can we do about it?

Have you seen the movie? Did you like it? Does it concern you the way Mr Khan personified God in the story?

How will you answer for your misdeeds when God calls you to judgement? How do you think the real world can be fixed?

05 July 2013

Earning money

Where does money come from?  How do we get money?

An obvious answer that I expect many of us would think of is "work".  However, in order to work, one needs to first find a job.  Or have some money (capital) in order to invest in a business ourselves.  Finding a job may not be easy in this day and age of high unemployment.  Having money to start with in order to earn money may not be easy either.  One can borrow, or sell stocks to start up one's business, but even then, it is no guarantee that the effort will pay off.

Martin Wildam's blog said some profound things on this matter, but the issue is not solved by his comments.  As large organisations seek to be more efficient with their costs, unemployment results as a consequence and the disparity between rich and poor increases.  It is still hard for the unemployed to gain employment.

But even if one is employed, there is no guarantee that one's job will always be there.  Even if one is one's own boss, there is no guarantee that one's business will always survive.

So where does money come from?  How can we have enough to live?  Support ourselves and our dependents?  Have enough stored up for a rainy day and for our retirement?  What can we be sure of in order to survive today into tomorrow?

What do you think?  Please share your insights and your sources of confidence.  Thank you.

28 June 2013

Like children

Jesus welcomed children.  In Mark 10:13-14, Jesus was upset when his grown-up disciples tried to shove the children away while others were bringing them to Jesus to be blessed.

Johan finds this to be typical of people in our society.  If an important public figure were visiting, then we may have a child present flowers, and then children are not seen any more.  In some churches, children are put aside in the creche, so they do not interrupt the service.  In weddings, etc, unless they are very close to the bride or groom, quite often the children would be assigned a quiet table outside somewhere, or at the back, so they would not interrupt the adults.

Perhaps such behaviour is understandable.  After all, the adult talk and long charade of activities are boring to many children, who then fidget and interrupt or get annoying.  So what does it mean when Jesus said that we need to receive the kingdom of God like children?

Johan suggested that it is the focus and the relationship.  Children look to their parents to provide their needs.  They do not worry about money, time, resources, where their food or clothing or education comes from.  They just need to know that Mum and Dad are there.  Everything else will take care of themselves - or at least, Dad and Mum will take care of their problems.

If they have nightmares, or wounds or problems to deal with, then they go to Mum and Dad for a fix.  If they have a need, then they can call out or cry; Dad or Mum would usually attend to them in a jiffy.

If Mum and Dad are not there for them, then they will worry.  But when Dad and Mum are around, there is no need.  They are generally content.

Perhaps this is the way we need to relate to God - instead of trying to handle our issues ourselves.

I was reading http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829181.800-old-schooled-you-never-stop-learning-like-a-child.html during the week.  The article basically says that adults are not too old to learn.  The idea that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is not really true, unless you believe it and behave that way.  Adults can learn new things as well as what children can.

A difference is our focus.  Adults tend to have too many things to think about than to think about new subject matter.

Another difference is fear of embarrassment.  Children have less of this, comparatively speaking.

Yet another difference is experience.  To a child, everything is "new", and the world is there to explore.  Because they are new, they are interesting.  Some things are appealing because they are new and interesting.  Other things are forced upon the child to learn so they do it.  For many adults, it is as though they have seen it all before.  The charm of exploring is not there.  New things are a turn-off because it is a challenge they do not need to face, if they choose to settle in the areas that they have already explored instead.

A related issue is health.  The less fit among us may have more trouble learning compared to the fitter ones.

In any case, if an adult were to approach learning in the same way as what a child does, then many things can be learnt as easily as what children do.

I think maybe not everything.  We do get slower in some ways - because of health, and because neurons do not fire as sharply as what they used to.  But I do think that our attitudes can make a difference.

What do you think?  In what ways can an adult benefit from being "childish"?  In what ways shouldn't an adult act "childish"?  How should we live our lives healthily in this regard?  How do we approach God as adults and children?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

24 June 2013

Learning to live

What do you think it means to live?  What is life all about?  How are we to live our lives?

I am sure many, if not all of us, asks these questions as we live our lives.  Sometimes, we take for granted that we have life and the way we do what we do are the way we are supposed to.  But is that right?  What if our culture and what we have learnt is mistaken in what they have taught us?

Max said something that means got me thinking.  I don't remember his exact words, but what he said meant this: Deceiving hearts eventually harden.  Bad habits develop.  These things happen gradually, and we think it is okay.  But really, they are not.


Romans 1:18-2:16 says the same thing more strongly.  It says that people have substituted truth with unrighteousness; Godliness with other things that we think to be reasonable even if not exactly right.  We exchange the truth of God for a lie.  Then, as we ignore God, we live out greater and greater depravities until eventually, we heap serious judgement on ourselves.

We have become vile and inexcusable, and God will be our judge.

Ephesians 4:17-5:7 says that we need to live in the truth.  We need to live out the things we have learnt from Jesus.  We need to speak truthfully gracefully, be kind to our neighbours, live without sexual immorality, impurity or greed.

Are these the things you think of when you think about living?  Or do you think about acquiring wealth and prestige, empires and abundances for yourself when you read the opening paragraph?

How are you living your life?  How should you live it?  What do you need to do to make it right, if you don't already have it right?  What do you believe?

19 June 2013

Children grow up

"Gang rapes hit global headlines" in Delhi, according to SBS Dateline ... but apparently, more of the same thing happens in Phnom Penh that goes unreported.

According to the article, 5% of men surveyed have reported participating in gang rape, whereas in other parts of the world, only about 1-2% of men respond similarly.  Apparently, there is a cultural practice called "bauk" where men consider the act to be a "plus"; to be male-bonding and having fun.  They do not see it as rape or as bad behaviour.  They do it because they think it to be normal within their society.

Apparently, sex workers are hired, and then forced to have sex with a group.  Women, generally, do not fear getting attacked.

The justice system catches and punishes some men, and some people try to "correct" the situation.

The article explains that "In Cambodia like many countries young men are under pressure to appear tough and fit in. There is also a cultural reluctance among the older generation to talk to them about sex and healthy relationships."

It appears that the culture and the older generation are perhaps negligent in educating the younger ones about sex and acceptable, responsible behaviour.  This leads to a practice that is perhaps deemed as undesirable in many other societies.  To try to correct such behaviour suddenly would leave the young people to question why they are taught differently from what they have grown up believing.

So how do we address such issues?

Apparently, the older generation needs to take responsibility.

In Australia, it has been deemed that girls grow up too quickly, "worrying about weight, looks, boys and fashion at the age of ten" instead of enjoying childhood.

Generally, girls experience puberty while their ages are between 10 and 14 years.  At this stage, they understand their bodies are changing, and they wonder what it means to be women.  According to essentialkids.com.au, they can learn these things from adults, or from their peers. The opinion of the author is that adults make better mentors compared to peers.  Peer influence tend to (generally speaking) be more dangerous.

For this reason, it is recommended that adults make time to spend with their developing children.  It is inevitable that kids will learn from peers anyway, but some adult influence can be positive.

Do you think so?  What do you think?  How do we cure the problems that society will potentially face in the next generation?  How much time do we spend with our children?  How much do our children look up to us?

Does God have a role in all this?

16 June 2013

We need love

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9637682/Whats-the-difference-between-these-two-brains.html compares the brains of two three-year-old children.  One brain was bigger than the other.  The bigger brain also showed more connections; ie. less spots and less fuzzy areas.

Apparently, the better brain belongs to a child that receives love.  The other brain was that of a neglected child.

While one comparison may not be conclusive, it does suggest that a loved child would tend to develop with better intelligence compared to one who feels unloved.

What do you think?  Do people develop the same?  Does love make a difference?  How?  Why?

What can we do to help neglected children?

Where does love for the children come from?  Parents?  Other relatives?  Anybody at all?

Why?

Does God have a role in this?  How can God help?  Is He obliged to do anything?

Where does prayer come in then?

What do you think?  How can you help?


06 June 2013

Lies to unlearn

Marc Chernhoff lists the following lies that we should unlearn:
  • Happiness is getting what you want.  (Not really.  Happiness is being content with what you have.)
  • Success is living up to everybody's expectations, including yours.  (Not necessarily.  You can feel successful for every positive difference you make, regardless how small, even if they don't meet anyone's expectations.)
  • A busy day is a productive day.  (No.  You can be busy without being productive.  You should work smarter, not harder, and you should be diligent as you work.)
  • To be brave is to not feel afraid.  (Actually, you can be brave and feel afraid at the same time.)
  • To be strong is to not feel pain.  (Actually, even the strong feel pain.)
  • Everyone around you is holding you back.  (No.  Take responsibility for your own progress, don't blame people or circumstances around you.)
  • You are entitled to expect certain things from other people.  (No.  Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed.)
  • You will feel comfortable when the time is right.  (Not necessarily.  You can feel comfortable even if the time is wrong.  Discomfort can also be a sign of growth and meeting with changes which can be positive.)
  • It is already too late.  (Probably not.  You can keep trying).
I found his list rather profound and simple and true. How about you?  What do you think of the items on this list?

If they are indeed true, then how did we come about to believe such lies?  Is it because of our ego?  Our culture?  Our environment?  Would our expectations be different if we grew up somewhere else?

How can we unlearn such lies if indeed they are lies?

What do you think?

31 May 2013

Discipline needs

Would we be behaving better if we had been disciplined better as children?  If our society were less tolerant compared to what it is?  What do you think?

If you think so, then what do you think caused us to be more lax?  Why are we allowed to be less disciplined today?  Are we not seeing the benefits of discipline?  Or is tolerance and being yourself so overly emphasised today?  Maybe it is because we have a general tendency towards being ill-disciplined.  What do you think?

Ilda blogged about the lack of discipline in the Philippine environment.  She advocates the idea that Philippines would be a better country if people respected the laws better, if people were more obedient and less creative, if people would obey instructions without feeling victimised when told what to do.  However, she sees that the present mindset has proliferated the present society, and people are unlikely to change overnight.

Given her thoughts, I think that every society should pull their socks up, and increase in our willingness to follow rules, instead of becoming more slack.  Especially Godly rules.

Tim Keller analysed why same-sex acts got the death penalty in the Old Testament days but not today.  Originally, it is because that form of union does not reflect God's glory and did not model holiness for society or the world.  So for the sake of discipline, such acts were punished - as it still is in some parts of the world.  Later on, though, we got into the New Testament era, where the message of grace became stronger than the message of judgement and punishment.  So, as this message entered into modern culture, the message of forgiveness and tolerance influenced so many modern societies that we do not punish offenses against God as fiercely as what we used to.

Do you agree with Tim's view?

How do you think we should honour God?  Is God a god of judgement or of forgiveness?  How do we reconcile the two if God is both?

Why shouldn't we become more lax if God is gracious?  Do you have more to add to this question besides what Ilda had written?

What is the way forward for our world?

22 May 2013

Are we being manipulated?

Suzanne Maloney described the Iranian elections as full of "maneouvering", as each of the 686 candidates tries to out-do the others.  The Iranians know their culture and may not think of the tactics as "manipulation", but perhaps people outside their culture would.

That set me thinking - what does manipulation mean?  What consitutes manipulation?  Are we being manipulated in the free world?

Eg. we may think we have the freedom to choose, but how limited is our freedom?

If the public transport infrastructure is weak, then we would feel the need to have our own vehicle more.  Are we manipulated into owning a vehicle to compensate for the fact that our government did not invest well into public transport?  Or, if the government provided plenty of public transport but taxed private vehicles heavily, then, can we say that citizens are manipulated into using public transport?

In democratic countries, the voice of the people is "heard" by their government.  But what avenues does the government give for the voice of the people to reach them?  Does the government have the time to answer our every phone call, email or letter?  I see that some government spends for the resources to hear from the people more compared to others.

Then there is the media that carries our news and entertainment.  The media should stay neutral, but in order to sell papers, etc, it needs to sensationalise and appeal to public interests and fears.  The asylum seeker situation, etc. may not be as bad as what the media makes it out to be.  And in some countries, the government owns the media channels.

Even on the internet, we cannot believe everything we read - as some people tell lies.

Eg. Angelina Jolie announced that she has had a double mastectomy done to reduce her risk of breast cancer.  Many seem to honour her as a hero for doing this, but some think that this is a manipulative move by holders of gene patents to get through some legal decisions.  The news appeals to women to be tested for a gene - although few can afford such testing.  Is this a way for the medical specialists to make money?

Scientists are now saying that there is probably no "gay gene" - contrary to what they have been thinking in the past, and contrary to what some people wanted society to think.  Nevertheless, Kevin Rudd of Australia is now supporting gay marriages.  Is some maneuvering going on here?

What do you think?  Are we manipulated to believe things out of what we hear, and deceived away from knowing the truth?  What is the truth anyway?  What should we believe?  How do we get around the untruths that are masked around the truth in the information that we are fed?

Is God deceived too?

15 May 2013

Persuading/Influencing another

What does it mean to persuade somebody?  Or to influence somebody?

When should we want to influence or persuade another person?  Or to leave that person to make up his own choices without any input from us?

Nesrin Saab spoke at an ACS Project Management SIG tonight.  She explained the following definitions:
  • Influencing is getting others to agree with what you want them to agree to.  It is using your behaviour to change the behaviour of somebody else.  Influencing is based on trust.
  • Negotiation is when you come to an agreement in a manner of setting or raising a price.  It is not based on behaviour.  It is coming to the right terms in the agreement by lowering or raising the expectations.
  • Persuading is like influencing, but it is a one-time effect.  A change in behaviour is not the outcome.  It is just getting somebody to agree with you at the instance of your persuading them.
  • Manipulation is different from influence, as manipulation is based on deception rather than trust.
Given these definitions, what should we do about our beliefs?  Should we use them to persuade another?  Or to influence another?  Or just to leave people to believe whatever they want?  Why?

What do you think?

12 May 2013

Feeling poor

It is possible to feel poor without actually being poor.  The feeling is just a mindset that is not really consistent with reality, and also kind of dependent on your definition of what being poor means.

Rachel Hill wrote of this mindset - where "complaining about money (or our lack thereof) has become a national sport" in Australia, even though salaries and standards of living has soared.  People can catch a cab home when they don't want to bear with the conditions of the train, even though they feel poor.  Masters degree, recent overseas trip, etc. makes one feel poor, but that one has been able to take on these things means that one is not as poor as what one thinks.

She says it is not just the notion of self-pity.  It is also living up to the way one thinks that the society expects.  "Dishing out $60 for a dinner with friends, $200 for a buck's weekend away, $50 for a baby shower, and $25 for a Kickstarter campaign isn't just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses – it's a matter of not offending them."

There are those who are genuinely poor - who cannot afford to turn on the heater during the winter.  There are also those who have money in the bank, but are living beyond what they are currently receiving.  And there are those who feel poor even though they are not.

Which group do you belong to?  What is your definition of "poor"?  Are you keeping up to your expectation or that of society?

How about God's expectations?

Are your needs met?  Are you able to help others as well?

What should you do with your extra resources?  Help someone in need?  Locally or overseas?  Save it up for a rainy day or for your retirement?

What do you think?

04 May 2013

Same sex marriages

Do same sex marriages improve a society or deteriorate it?  What do you think?  Why?

Bradley Miller seems to think it is bad for society.  From his examination of its effects in Canada, he reckons that the practice deteriorates people's rights to free speech, as one is limited in one's ability to speak against a practice that has been passed into law.  He thinks that education deteriorates as well, as one cannot explain the male-female relationships and sexual intercourses that is "normal" among many species as liberally for fear of offending those who are pro-same sex-relationships.  While religious institutions are not forced to perform marriages against their beliefs, they are denied the right to with-hold the use of their premises for people who want to be married.

However, there are those who do not share his view.  Australian Marriage Equality has 12 points why "marriage equality" should be allowed.  They did not expand on these 12 points - perhaps because they think that the points are obvious and need no further explanation; or perhaps because the points sound good when put forward in this way, but holds no strong basis when examined more carefully.  I do not know.

A Kastanis et al and Yahoo! Finance say that gay marriages are good for the economy because of the monetary benefits that come in from people who would spend on weddings, marriages, adoptions, taxes, etc.  Perhaps they are right, but should society be driven because of the economic reason alone?

How do we balance this view against what Miller wrote?  Does it mean that same sex marriages are good for money, but not good for ethics and liberty?

I read about John Paulk as I was pondering these thoughts.  Apparently, this guy used to be a cross-dresser and a drug user.  Then he met and decided to follow Jesus.  He left the gay community, married a former lesbian, and in their marriage relationship, came to have three sons.  Then he left all that to return to the gay community.

Andrew Commiskey, who wrote about John, thinks is not so much about a person's struggle with his own sexual identity.  He thinks that a lot of this change has to do with how one feels loved and accepted by others.  It has to do with "getting attention, flirting, being made to feel special,  distracting oneself from one’s chronic dissatisfaction with life through parties and other high-animation activities", according to Andrew.

If this is true, then it is not really a "gay-gene" that makes people homosexual, but really, ones perception, or misperception, of what is love and how one feels about it.  One is after the right to choose to be loved by people who seem to give love, rather than being really wanting to be homosexual.  If this is really the case, then society has really gone wrong in the aspect of leaving a person to feel unloved ... and society then walks down the path to see more deterioration through this gay-marriage debate.

This is what I surmise from all this reading anyway.  What do you think?  Do you have a different conclusion?

Is God real in all this?  What is right or wrong in God's eyes?  What do you think?  What does God say?

28 April 2013

The future of public services

What will happen to public services in years to come?  Will we still enjoy the "free" facilities that our taxes pay for?  Or will everything be so commercialised and "user-pays" that there becomes nothing to enjoy in the future?

Gone are the days when University courses were free.  In fact, tertiary education is big, international business nowadays.  In fact, there is talk that University fees will go up in price in order to fund education for primary and secondary school children.

Public libraries are something that I have enjoyed, but apparently, the facilities are not there in every country I have lived in.  Now, in this age of e-books and broadband internet being available almost everywhere, will public libraries still be useful in the future?  I appreciate that libraries are useful for more purposes than just the books, but the people who run and fund these facilities may not.

I heard the other day the proposal that people be charged for using the parks; ie. if they take a dog for a walk or go for a jog or something.  I heard that the city councils have rejected the idea, but do you think it might happen someday in the future?

Parking is still free at some times in some places, but no longer in the streets of the big cities anymore, it seems.  Then, as the statistics say that more people are using these streets, there has been talk of reducing the free parking faciltiies.  Even shopping complexes do not all have 3-hour free parking nowadays.

As the trend changes, what other facilities do you think might disappear?  Will you miss these facilties?

What if you have to pay the police if you use their services?  Would that mean that criminals can pay the police so that they don't get caught?  Would the same principle apply to judges and law courts?

As it is, the fire services are asking for money from the insurance companies and the property taxes in order to pay for their services.

What do you think might change?  Do you like the prospect of such user-pay services?

25 April 2013

Singing at church

Do you go to church?  Do you sing with the others there?  Or do you find that culture too strange?  The songs to unusual?  The practice of singing with the congregation too awkward?

I stumbled across David Murrow's blog post on this subject a few days ago.  I found it quite thought provoking.

Apparently, church used to be such that professionals would sing in a foreign language (Latin), and the congregation didn't.  Then the Reformation happened.  People began to read the Bible for themselves, and there became a movement to express their worship themselves also.  Hymns were written.  When printing became popular, the hymn books were published and circulated and everybody was able to sing together.  Such became the culture of the church.

Then came the days of the projectors.  Song books became less used, as people projected the words on screen.  At first, the projected words were the songs that were in the hymn books and other song books.  But, as people came out to write and sing newer songs, these were no longer circulated in the song books at churches.  Then song leaders would get excited to introduce newer songs so often that the congregations do not sing the new songs often enough and do not learn them well enough to join in.

So we are back to the pre-Reformation age where the song-leaders sing, and the congregation doesn't.

Do you find this phenomenon at your church?

What do you think about it?

Why should/shouldn't we sing at churches?  What is the singing all about?

Are we at an age of information overload?  I mean, while there were too few songs, it was boring.  While there are too many, it becomes impossible to learn.  Have we passed the ideal stage of having roughly the right number to not be boring, but yet able to learn?

What do you think?

19 April 2013

Popular belief vs. Godly belief

I think that democracy works well, without tension, when the society is uniform in its beliefs and its beliefs are based on the same theology.  Tension builds when the convictions are diverse.

Take, for example, the issue of gay marriages.  They now call this "marriage equality" as though as though heterosexual marriages are unequal ... but this is a different matter.

In my society, those who favour "marriage equality" are thinking that the church is wrong to believe that God ordained for marriage to be the union of man and woman.  They think that people should be allowed to choose any way they think is right.

Does the determination of right and wrong lie with the people?  Or is it in believing what God has said?  Is society righteous enough to make this determination?  Or does democracy fall in a heap when the majority of the people believe that they have the power to choose right and wrong ... and then they believe that the wrong is right?

What do you think?


11 April 2013

Greed and selfishness

Sheikh tweeted that ""humans biggest downfall is selfishness and greed"".  Would you agree?  Why or why not?

Sam disagreed.  He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.".  What do you think?

Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?

I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed.  It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us.  Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better.  Or we should know better.

Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness".  He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.

So why are we like this, even so?  Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better?  Are some of us better than others?  Who is good enough for God?

What do you think?

05 April 2013

Sex education

How do our children and young people learn about sex if not from us?  What are we teaching them?

I am remembering a time when we used to talk about AIDS and other STDs.  It was at a time when the rate of infections were lower.  Why have we stopped?  Is it because there is now a cure in some cases?  I heard a case on ABC radio where somebody is living longer than what the doctors told her to expect.

But there are still the morality issues.  Fiona Philips said that "our children are being failed by a lack of proper, structured information about loving partnerships and how to negotiate them because a squeamish, ignorant few would rather their children found out the hard way.".  They learn from porn, etc. because their parents and school teachers forget or are too squeamish to tell them the real story.  Would you agree?

Does church have a role to play also?

Another article that caught my eye is a father's letter to Victoria Secrets.  The letter basically said that advertising, etc. has made the work of the parents a lot harder, in upholding morality when manufacturers and sales encourage our young people to "flaunt it".  What do you think of that?

Because we who should know better are not educatiing your younger ones the way we should, Rebekah Maxwell reckons that our youth are more likely to get STDs than to get a job.  Do you think she is exaggerating?

What is the truth about this matter?  How should young people behave sexually?  Who has the power and right to teach them?  What do you think?

30 March 2013

Guards at Jesus tomb

Who were the guards outside Jesus' tomb?

Matthew 6:62-66 says that the chief priests and Pharisees requested of Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded.  They thought that if word breaks out in the future that Jesus had come back to life, then "all hell would break lose".  People would believe in Jesus.  The religious leaders would lose control.  So to make sure that such a rumour would not be fabricated, they wanted the tomb sealed and guarded.

Pilate consented.  He either said "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." or "Take a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." (according to the ESV version of the Bible, and noting the footnote).

The two possible meanings leave us some ambiguity.  Were the guards from Pilate's Roman soldiers?  Or were they temple guards?  Does it make a difference to the story?

I read an article that studied the difference, and thought about it.

In a way, yes, it does make a difference.  Roman soldiers are better trained, and more committed to the tasks assigned to them.  They face a penalty of execution if they slept on the job.  Temple guards can be forgiven more easily.  Temple guards report to the chief priests.  Roman guards report back to their centurion, and ultimately back to Pilate.  Hence Matthew 28:11 could imply that they were temple guards instead of being Roman guards, although the word "some" leave the ambiguity there.

For Jesus' followers to steal the body would be less likely to happen in the case of Roman guards.  However, Jesus' followers were feeling sad, depressed, confused and afraid at the time.  They were not in a position to overcome either guard or to roll away the stone.  Matthew 28:2 says that there was an earthquake, and an angel of the Lord rolled the stone away.

The story about the guard stopped at this point.  It was deemed to be no longer significant enough to write about, as in either case, their story was no longer credible.  The main point, regardless of which guard, is that Jesus did rise from the dead.

If Jesus' followers did fabricate the story, then the details of the fabrication would have come out during torture or threat of death.  But they were too afraid at the time to try something so heroic at the time anyway.  If Joseph of Arimethea changed his mind and moved the body before the guard was placed, then either he or his accomplices would have confessed ... or the body would have been found at some stage.

I think Jesus' resurrection really happened.  What do you think?  What plausible stories can you think of to say it didn't happen if you don't believe it?  What convinces you that the story is true if you believe it?  Please share.