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?
31 May 2013
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?
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:
What do you think?
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.
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)