27 December 2014

Who complains

The world is afire with revolt, but a new kind of revolt, befitting our young century: The revolt of the middle class.

While their complaints are all different, the specifics only magnify what they have in common: All of these protests and rebellions are being led by comparatively well educated, affluent citizens upset about their government’s violation of liberal principles and the rule of law.
These words, from http://aholeofthecentury.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-revolt-of-middle-class.html, provoked a realisation within me.  It seems that a vital ingredient in the process of democracy lies in having reasonably educated people with sufficient wealth to power the protests of the masses.  People who read and think and feel for the underprivileged, and want to do something to help.

Do you think so?

The minorities would be trodden down, if nobody stood up to defend them.  And when the oppressors are the government voted in by the majority, it takes the power of the voters to get it right again when they realise the harm they have caused.  People who repent of their earlier voting, or who see that the people that they have voted for abusing the power that they have been given.  People who wish to correct the wrong in society.

While the media may influence the thinking of the people, while religious leaders and moral crusaders may tell people what to think and how to vote ... the power ends up with the educated who have enough wealth and muscle pulling the masses with them to voice their protests.

Is this how God works?  Is this how democratic society works?

I think it was so in the days of Jose Rizal in the Philippines.  Of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.  And perhaps several more.  But perhaps there is more to democracy and how the people think and drive their protests than this simple statement.

What do you think?

25 December 2014

Plain language

How can we reduce our words, speak/write to communicate more clearly and more concisely?

In this day when people try to get to the point quickly, skim read through texts and do not pay attention well, it does pay off to present one's point well by getting to the point clearly.

The Plain English Foundation helps people do this in English.  They also collect a series of "worst words", where people try to hide or dress up what they say so to seem more intelligent or less offensive.

This year, the Foundation nominated the phrase "conscious uncoupling" to be the worst.  This expression was used to mean "divorce" by Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow.  It was deemed that such a way of dressing up the truth may be suitable for the speaker, but not really with the clarity that the public is wishing to hear.

Some other examples of such "double speak" is the phrase "rapid disassembly" that was used to mean "exploding airbags", or "pavement failure" to mean "pothole".

What do you think?  Do such euphemisms help communication, or do they make the comunication process worse?  From whose point of view?  Why do people dress up what they wish to say in riddles?  Do people try to hide their intentions behind their words?

How will God be pleased with the way we handle ouor words?  How can we do it well?

19 December 2014

Guns in society

People have been talking about relaxing gun laws in Australia since the recent Sydney Siege.

What do you think?  Is easing the right to have guns for the public good for the society or not?

In favour for having guns, people are saying that perhaps people could have defended themselves against the gunman.

Against the idea is the realisation that the USA have lesser gun controls, and massacres in schools happen once in a while.  People accidentally shooting each other, or killing another and then regretting it.

I remember Australia taking a tough stand against carrying knives, when policemen were stabbed many years ago.  The law changed such that one may carry a knife as part of one's work, but not for self-defense or for willfully wanting to hurt anyone.  And the knife should not be concealed if it is larger than a certain size.

If this logic prevails about knives, how much more would it apply to guns?

What do you think?  How should people defend themselves if they were to be denied weapons?  How can we prevent people from using weapons in harmful or threatening ways if they were allowed these?

The gunman of the Sydney siege was not licensed to have a gun, but yet, he had one.  How can we prevent people even from breaking the law in this regard?

12 December 2014

Why did Jesus come

During the Christmas season of cheer, people sing of "peace on earth, goodwill to men".  Some remember Jesus in the midst of the season, others don't.  Nevertheless, this warm fuzzy feeling of "peace on earth, goodwill to men" gives people around the world a reason to rejoice.

Do you think so?  What do you think of Christmas?  Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

This year, as I read my Bible, I come across messages of sin and of God's intention to deal harshly with it.

Passages like Revelations 9:20-21:
The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.
Or Zephaniah 1:18:
Neither their silver nor their gold
    will be able to save them
    on the day of the Lord’s wrath.”
In the fire of his jealousy
    the whole earth will be consumed,
for he will make a sudden end
    of all who live on the earth.
These passages tell me that "peace on Earth, goodwill to men" is not entirely the message that we are to get.  We should also know that Jesus is coming again to judge the world because of its unrighteousness.  While judgement and unrighteousness are not popular messages, it is really something that we need to prepare for if we are to have peace with God ... eternally.

Would you agree?

Should we listen to only messages that we like, and shut out the ones we find unpleasant?  Is there good and bad intertwined, as ying-and-yang?  What is God really telling us?  Are we listening?

05 December 2014

Allowed eating

"When I walk into a restaurant, ... it shouldn’t be important to the waiter what my religion is", wrote Dr Taj Hargey 

I agree with him.  Hungry people want to eat.  It doesn't matter how the chicken was killed.  So long that it has been handled in a reasonably sanitary kind of way, I would think it would be okay.

Hargey points out that for chicken to be truly "halal", it has to be killed in a certain way, with the blood drained from it, and prayers chanted.  However, the Quran does not actually require that Muslims eat food that is truly "halal" only.  It says in Chapter 5:5 that 
‘This day all good things are made lawful for you. The food of the People of the Book [meaning the Jews and the Christians] is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them …'
Hargey, as a Muslim, would allow himself to eat any meat other than pork.  He reckons that non-Muslims have even less reason to fuss over the detail of whether food is "halal" in the Muslim context or not.  And Muslims, eating non-halal meat of allowed animals are not violating the Quran's command, so they do not need to be as picky as what some have become.

Would you agree with him?

Why then is there this big fuss over "halal" food?  Why are companies paying big bucks to be halal certified?  And why are companies forced to take on the "halal" certification in order to export their produce?

Is this a money making venture to keep the Imams in business?  Or are there other hidden reasons behind this?

Are people making a bigger deal about Islam and drawing an unnecessary "them" vs "us" line between the Muslims and non-Muslims?  Why would people do this?

How are we to love one another when conspiracy theories abound?

What do you think and believe?

28 November 2014

Where is home

The answer to the question of where home is is pretty obvious to some people.

For a young child, home is where the parents are.  For others, home is where they go to after school or after work, where they were born, where they grew up, where they normally live, etc.

Karl Dahlfred says that it is not so easy with missionaries.

At the early stage of living in a foreign land, "home" is where they have come from.  They have stories from "home" that the locals do not relate to.

Then, when they return for their home assignment, they have stories from abroad that their peers at home do not relate to.  When people talk about how nice it is for them to be "home", they get a funny feeling, as they agree with the person, and also see it to be nice where they were settled for their mission.  The early stages of home assignment is nice for catching up with family and friends, but once that has happened, there is also a longing to be back out there with the friends that they have in their place of ministry.

In a sense, these guys are home at the place they return to, to an extent.  To another extent, home is where their ministry is.  And in another sense, these guys are at home in neither place, as the worlds have changed in their absence.  They are like third culture kids, who are not exactly of the culture of either place, but have a unique culture of their own.

(And to a sense, there are variations of these too - as people have different "home culture" and "host culture" experiences depending on where they live and where they serve.  Some missionaries have served in more than one host country - so that would be yet another phenomenon.)

I reckon this phenomenon is not limited to missionaries doing overseas service.  Expats managing multinational organisations abroad, school teachers abroad, etc. would probably relate to this equally well.  Also immigrants, refugees, and other people who have moved to live in another city or another state.

What do you think?

Are such people ever at "home" anywhere?  What does "home" mean in their context?  Can they ever be "home"?

26 November 2014

Attraction and racial stereotypes

Vesko Cholakovv gave his blog the title "Rules of Attraction: Why white men marry Asian women and Asian men don't marry white women".

I disagree with his summation.  I have seen many Asian men who have married white women.  Especially those of Cambodian men who have married British women.  I appreciate that what he wrote is a generalisation, but even so ...

Cholakovv's blog lays reason to sterotypes.  Movies, television, etc. influences the decision.  The way characters are depicted in our entertainment impresses upon society the stereotypes that the authors or producers either believes in, or wishes the society to conform to.  The entertainment industry mostly originated from white American society, which felt the need to protect themselves from the Asian and black-skinned immigrants who would seek marital partners from their kind.

Three stereotypes were introduced:
  1. That black men are aggressive and hyper-masculine, while Asian women are perfect wives because of their docile, submissive and obedient behaviour.
  2. That Asian men are desexualised math brainiacs while black women are too aggressive, independent and outspoken to be attractive wives.
  3. That white men and women are in a position of power and consequently desirable globally.
Although there would be exceptions to this rule, the subtle power of influence from media gets society to behave in a way where men and women subconsciously finding people attractive or not, and end up choosing their marital partners based on these stereotypes.

Of course, society is changing, and there are more deviations to this stereotype today compared to before.  Movies are also less likely to depict their characters based on these stereotypes compared to the past.  And Bollywood, Korea and other nations are injecting entertainment that are not based on white society.

Do you think our choices are based on racial stereotypes which are based on our entertainment industry?  Why or why not?

What should we believe about other people, if not what we have learned about them?  How do we shake off the influence of the subtle messages we have absorbed?

What do you think?

18 November 2014

Choices

How do you make your choices along life's paths?  What would you choose in order to advance your career life?  Your marriage?

Do you make these choices based on what is good for you?  Or what is good for other people?

Are the choices based on your talents?  Or what you wish to learn?

I have read a few interesting articles recently that seem to give some advice on this matter:
  • Practice does not make perfect all the time.  It isn't always about what you want to achieve and how you strive for it.  It is also about what you have been gifted to do.  Some people can try all they want and not achieve in something ... although these people are likely to be good at something else instead.
  • Focus on God.  You can screw up your life by giving into temptations.  By being distracted from what you are called to do.  Worship God, identify the distractions and put them away, and be responsible for your own spiritual health.
  • The best part about life is realising why something didn't work out.  We are happier when things work out, of course, but there are lessons to be learned along the way.  Eg. friends we shouldn't trust, goals we shouldn't aim for ... don't feel like a failure because it didn't work out; instead, learn from these lessons.
Do you think so?  Do you think such advice is right?  What would God want to teach you?  Are you willing to learn?  How will you make your next set of choices now that you have read this?

10 November 2014

Food distribution

I found it shocking to read that people were arrested when they tried to feed the hungry.  Apparently, the city find the poor and homeless to be an eye-sore, and do not wish to help them in this way.  How uncaring?

(Perhaps the city doles out welfare and assumes that to be enough.  I do not know.)  Meanwhile, equally shocking in the other extreme, is the cost that food distributors pay to put the "halal" label on their brands.  They claim that they do not pass on this cost to the consumer, but in the interest of having some profit and staying in business, it is hard to imagine how this is possible.

This sounds as bad as food distributors dumping their excess stock so to keep their prices high, rather than to use it to feed the poor.  What is our world coming to?

Having said this, I also see that some hotels and bakeries do feed the poor.  Supermarkets discount their day-old bread, while some other businesses donate the left over stock to charities and not-for-profit organisations rather than dumping.  I cheer this behaviour.

How about you?  Can you see the sense in this?  Do you think God would be pleased with the way we handle money and our attitudes towards the poor in our society?

02 November 2014

How dumb are we

Whirlpool designed a "smart" washing machine, but nobody is buying it!

Apparently, following the trend of the Internet of Things, the smart washing machine can be connected by Wi-Fi and be accessible from an iPhone app.  One can start or monitor the washing machine by sending signals across the internet, and the device can sms or email the user when the wash is complete.  It costs only USD1699, but hardly anybody at this point in time is wanting to buy one.

Who needs to control or monitor one's washing across the net?  One still needs to be physically present to load or unload the wash.  Or have another person attend to the task on one's behalf.  Besides being trendy, how useful is it to have such a device?

Will it win an Ig-Nobel prize the way the way the software that detects a cat walking over a keyboard did?

Maybe it is not that silly.  But it does beg the question.  Are we inventing things to follow a trend, without really solving useful problems?  Has ICT gone crazy, solving problems that nobody needs solved?  Do we really need data everywhere, and data mining to follow trends?  Are we doing anything really practical, or has effort gone into marketing useless gadgets?

Do we really need smart watches, electronic tablets and computer-spectacles?

Or are these instruments actually useful?

I remember once not needing a smartphone, but I now realise the benefit of having one.  I am happy with 3G, but understand the trend is going towards 4G.  We used cameras and phones as different devices in a previous era; I am not sure that combining the two devices is actually a good thing, but see that this is where the world has become.

What do you think?  Do consumers buy dumb things because it is fashionable to?  Or are we really more astute?

29 October 2014

Evolution and Big Bang real

Apparently, Pope Francis believes that the theories of the Big Bang and of evolution are real.  Or so, Adam Withnall understands, based on an article published by the Independent today.

The Pope was speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  He said that God is not a magician.  He did not create the world by waving a magic wand, unlike the impression that some have from their understanding of Genesis.  Instead, God created and gave the system some "internal laws" with which the creation was able to progressively develop.

So evolution and the Big Bang theories describe the progression, and these theories are not inconsistent with what the Bible says about creation.

Would you agree with the Pope's point of view?

Do you think he is just trying to be politically correct?  The Catholic church has been historically opposed to scientific views, as it persecuted Galileo for his views.  As Catholic schools need to promote the popular culture of science, is the Catholic church putting up hypothesis to make their views consistent?

Are the theories of the Big Bang and evolution even correct?  The scientific method can change its present conclusions when more information comes to light, if the extra information correct current views.

Would God reject the present scientific theories?  Do the theories limit God, or describe what He has done?

What do you believe?  Why?

24 October 2014

Stop immigration

Should we stop people from migrating to our country?  Why or why not?  What do you think?

I think it is a pat on the back for a country if people want to migrate to it.  People generally leave countries that they don't think are doing well to migrate to countries that are perceived to be better.  Better in terms of economy, stability or opportunity.  But some people who love their land would not choose to leave - or would choose to return when the situation is better.

Some migrants do not remain loyal to their host country, as they long for their original homeland when the situation has improved.  Just like refugees do, but without being as desperate about it.

Jonathan Portes wrote some valid points about immigration in the context of the UK:
  • Migration is not a new phenomenon.  It has been around since the Roman days, when treaties allowed people freedom of movement for the purpose of labour, capital, goods and services.
  • Many fear that migration would negatively affect jobs and wages for the citizens already in the country.  Actually, the impact on jobs and wages is very small, when compared to technological change, employers’ increasing demand for skilled workers and the positive impact of the national minimum wage.
  • This is because as more people move, there also becomes greater demand for goods and services.  So economically, it isn't too many people for the same number of jobs, as the number of jobs will also increase.
  •  Migrants abuse the social welfare system ... but so do the original citizens.  Actually, migrants are half as likely to abuse the help system as compared to the locals, just that the locals are less talked about when they do it.
  • Migrants, in general, tend to be more within the age for employment compared to the rest of the population.  Ie. they are more likely to be contributing to society than the rest of society itself.
  • Migrants put pressure to the public services, but they also contribute to it.
  • Even so, migrants do cause problems, as population growth change the needs for housing and transport services that need to keep up with the growth, but are less quick to do so.
Do these arguments make sense to you?  Do you favour migration or are you against it?  Do you have any suggestions about how to improve the situation?

Are we just afraid of the unknown, even when there is no need to?

I think that to a large degree, we are selfish - trying to protect our personal good, rather than that of our society.  This causes perceptions that are not really true as our biases come out.  These perceptions cause some of us to migrate, and others of us to harbour some feelings against migrants.

Would you agree?

Is this an example of a problem that arises from sin?

19 October 2014

Why some people do well

Apparently, our sense of success is related to our perception of ourselves, and how willing we are to struggle.

Tracy Cutchlow wrote that children grow up with one of two possible mentalities:

Either that "if you have to work hard, you don't have the ability", or that "the more you challenge yourself, the smarter you become".

Those with the former attitude limit themselves as they fear being laughed at, as they consider themselves weaker, less clever, and less able compared to others.  Those with the latter attitude do not compare themselves with others as much, but seek to improve and to extend their boundaries.

And people can change between these two mindsets over time, as people are influenced by their teachers, their parents and their peers.

Would you agree with Tracy?  Why or why not?

Is positive attitude all that one needs?  How can this be nurtured?

Meanwhile, Joanne Lipman wrote of a teacher called "Mr K", who believed that "praise makes you weak while stress makes you strong".  Apparently, Mr K's method of teaching was such that his best complement was "not bad".  Mr K believed in hard work, and in pushing his students in ways contrary to the mindset of the positive parenting techniques today.

So, which is the right method to teach and train?  The carrot or the stick?  The push method, or the pull?  What is effective?

How does God deal with us?  How do we prefer to be dealt with?

How would you teach?

13 October 2014

Why does God bless you?

I was recently offered a new job.  When telling a friend about it, she told me that she knew I would get it.  Her reason was that she knew that God would bless me because of the things I have been doing diligently for God.

Really?  Is this why God blesses someone?  What do you think?

Is it because of our merit that we are blessed?  Is it because we have worked hard that we get the results we desire?  Or is it our service for God that lets us gain favour?

Perhaps I got the job because my friend gave me a good reference.  Perhaps it was something at the job interview.

Perhaps, God blessed me because He chose to - not because of anything I have done or did not do.

What do you think?  Why?

05 October 2014

How should women dress

Should women dress in a burqa, that covers every part of their body - even the eyes are veiled?

Or should women dress in just a band-aid?  Well, maybe, not quite "just a band-aid"; I was amused to read of clothing being described as such.  The author was referring to clothing so skimpy that it showed off so much fat and skin that it wasn't a pretty sight.

Perhaps both of these types of clothing are extremes in how much a woman should or should not cover up.  Perhaps something in between is more appropriate.  However, the type and style of clothing is also influenced by society and culture.  Also, elements of geography (how cold or warm it gets, whether an area has four seasons or only one), technology (smart clothes, microfibres, etc. are not available where the technology is not available), religion, school, etc. influence the culture.

Should women have the right to choose their clothes?  Is there enough unbiased information out there for her to choose well and wisely?

I understand that some women take pride in wearing burqa, whereas others see the burqa as a form of oppression.  Who is right?

Is there a right or wrong answer to this question about modesty, style, and comfort?

What do you believe?  Why?

Would God or her husband or her father have anything to say about her choice of dress?  Do they have any right to say anything?

30 September 2014

Asylum seekers

Do asylum seekers have rights?  Are they genuine?  How do we tell the difference between those who try to jump the queue in migration and those who are truly seeking refuge from something in their home country?  What is the rest of the world supposed to do with these asylum seekers?

An open forum was held on this topic, organised by the Golden Key International Honours Society.  It tried to address the issues from an Australian perspective.  Among the many points raised, I gleaned the following to be noteworthy:
  • International law deems asylum seeking to be legal, and Australian policies as not legal.
  • Normally, people need to present valid passport and travel papers at national borders; but the refugee convention understands that refugees need to be exempt from this.  This is because their situation is different enough.  Just like the law says that everybody needs to follow road rules, but makes exceptions for emergency vehicles.
  • Standards are supposed to be the floor, not the ceiling.  People are allowed to do better than the standards, but not worse.
  • Tax payers pay more for offshore detention compared to letting people just come in to Australia.
  • The Australian government is spending the same amount of money to stop people from coming in to the country, compared to UNHCR who spends that much trying to make the lives of asylum seekers easier.
  • Refugees 45 times less likely to commit crime cf normal Australian,
  • There is a perception in Australia that refugees should end up in an UNHCR camp and wait for their turn to be processed.  Landing on Australian shores by boat is the wrong way. But why so?  Desperate people resort to desperate means.
  • Case managers at refugee camps are not trained well for suicide, mental problems that detainees face.  They are only trained for dealing with journalists.
  • Unlike detained criminals, refugees do not know how long they are detained for.  This stress leads to mental problems and suicide in some cases.
  • Refugees perceive the detention center workers as their jailers, but that is not what the workers are there for.
  • People choose to return to their persecution because they lose hope. People shouldn't come to Australia as asylum seekers, but they do because they see us as hope.
  • Asylum seeking is a global crisis - the displacement globally at a 65 year high.
  • Wealthy nations reduce access to asylum, whereas middle and low income nations taking in 86% - up from a previous 70%.
  • Malaysia is taking in refugees, but do not provide them with school, etc.
  • We have a conundrum.  Australia does not want to take in refugees and treat them nicely, but wants the Asian neighbours to.  In this, Australians are hypocrites.
  • Australia would seek migrants to do certain jobs when they also have asylum seekers already there waiting to do the same jobs.  Why?  Many asylum seekers have skills and qualifications. Not all are the kind who have nothing to contribute.
  • Resettlement not really the answer as nations regard themselves as the transit point, not the end point. Not returning people to harm is one issue, not giving them hope is another issue.
  • Most refugees hope to return when the situations in their home countries improve. Those who don't have lost hope that their countries would improve.
  • Australia argues for national sovereignty when it comes to choosing who would come to their country, but against it when they wish to tell other nations how to handle policies about customs, police, etc.  This is another hypocrisy.
  • Terrorists can enter Australia as asylum seekers, but really, there are better ways to get to Australia as terrorist than by boat.
What do you think?  Do you believe what was presented at this forum?

What would you like the world to do for you, if you were an asylum seeker?  What would you do for asylum seekers if it were in your power to do anything?

How do we provide life and hope for asylum seekers?

Does God care?  What would God want us to do?

28 September 2014

Time management

How do you manage your time when you have too much on your plate?  How do you prioritise?

Many of us wear different hats; eg. as a parent, a student, a business manager, and to handle numerous chores at home at the same time.  How does one cope with doing this?

Should one value leisure, health, work, or family above the other values?

We often say to put God first, others next, and ourselves last.  However, we need to include God in all aspects of life - home, work, studies, and leisure.  How do we put God first while doing these things?  What would God have us do?

What do you think?

18 September 2014

Sex with multiple partners

A contributor to SMH Lifestyle thinks that it has become easier to get laid nowadays.  He then asks if we should be doing it more, and with multiple partners just because it has become easier to.

The contributor said that homosexuality is more acceptable nowadays.  Connecting with sexual partners is also easier, now that phone apps and similar advertising is rampant.  But does it mean that we should do it more just because it has become easier to?

The risk of contracting sexual diseases is still there (even though medical sciences has reduced the risks in some instances).  And then, there is also the risk of being devalued as a person...

In the article's final paragraph, the author said
 "Yet I remain unconvinced. Yes, I agree with freedom of choice. But, ideally, that choice should be informed. Are we properly informed about the long-term consequences of sex with multiple partners in one day? Do we know what will result from this culture when frequent sex with many strangers is easy? Prostitution has a price – what's the cost when the sex comes free and easy?"

What do you think ?  What do you believe?  How would you answer him?

Does morality and ethics have anything to do with this question?  What would God say?

08 September 2014

The NSW Opal card

NSW Australia has introduced a stored-value, debit card that is to be used to pay fares on their public transport system.  This card is called the "Opal" card.  It is similar to the MRT pass used in Singapore, and the "myki" used in Melbourne.

The virtues of the Opal card have been debated on news media for months.  The Opal website tells of the positive points, but not the negative ones.  To counterbalance what it says, I shall summarise the negative points I have noticed here:
  • While it gives business to newsagents and convenience stores, it lessens business for the CityRail ticket counters now that many paper tickets have been discontinued.  This results in a level of unemployment.
  • If one does not tap off properly, one will get charged the maximum fare.  Unlike Singapore, though, the maximum fare is expensive.  Sometimes, it is not one's fault that one does not tap off properly.  Eg. if one thinks one has tapped, but actually missed.
  • When on a train last week, ticket inspectors boarded to check the tickets of the passengers on board.  Most of us checked out okay, but one didn't.  This man said he tapped on at Town Hall.  He did not know why his Opal card did not register that.  Ticket inspectors seemed to have suspected something foul happening, and was giving the man a hard time.
  • The system apparently gives discounts on individual fares, although possibly, it is more expensive compared to the seasonal tickets that many residents use.
  • The old system allows passengers to travel for free within the City Circle.  The Opal card doesn't.  But this might be okay, since the system only charges for eight trips/week and subsequent trips become free.
  • The Opal card system is not friendly to outstation visitors.  Especially to those from other countries.  Such visitors would not be used to the public transport fares of NSW.  This and the uncertainty of their travel plans make it hard to determine how much value to store on their Opal cards.  Then, these visitors cannot get refunds easily.  Refunds come in the form of a cheque or a bank deposit in Australian dollars to an Australian bank account.
What do you think?  Is the Opal card a good system overall?  Do the positive points outweigh the negative ones?

I find that by the ways in which some of the other tickets have been discontinued and the way some of the other discounts have become unavailable, people are being herded onto the Opal card system, even if they do not like it.  Choices are few if one does not choose what the authorities want one to choose.  The customers have choices, but the alternatives are not attractive.

Do you find this to be the case too?  Does this indicate manipulation in a negative sense?  Or do you think it is all positive?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

03 September 2014

Second chance

After a crackdown on cheating, it was found that only 25% of the Cambodians who set their leaving High School exams passed.

What does this low statistic tell you?  That most Cambodians are cheats?  That their academic ability is lacking?  That their instructors did not do a good job?

Indeed, it is a struggle for this country.  Teachers try to compensate their low salaries by offering tuition at a price.  When I lived there, I heard that many students even had to pay to get their exams marked.  If such is the environment in which they grew up, it is inevitable that they link academia with extra payments - many people outside the system would consider these "extra payments" as bribery.

Many of the Cambodians I have met are very studious.  They are able to think analytically and are pretty astute with languages and many other areas.  In my opinion, these students would do well academically, even without cheating.  But, the nature of the system in their home country puts them in poor light even though their abilities shine.

The University system would not work well, unless they accept students of the right caliber.  This high failure rate does little to boost confidence in the University qualifications.

The students who failed the recent exams have been offered a second chance.

Will they do better the second time around?  Will they have enough time to prepare, if they have been slack throughout the whole of their High-school life?  Will the second time be as strict against cheating as was the first test?

Was the crackdown on cheating bad?

How can this problem be avoided?

What would you do, if you lived in this situation?  What would you do if you were one of these students who had to do these recent exams?

25 August 2014

Live what you believe, or don't?

Samantha Pugsley waited until she got married before losing her virginity.  She regretted it though.

Her reason for doing this is because she pledged to do so at church when she was 10.  She learned that sex was taboo outside marriage.  She had the impression that anything associated with sex outside marriage was morally wrong, to the extent that she feared going to Hell if she crossed the line.  She was proud of her virginity badge of righteousness and felt guilty if anything remotely sexual came up.

She had sexual intercourse with her husband after marriage, but by that stage, protecting her virginity was such an integral part of her, that she did not find pleasure in sex.  It hurt.  It felt dirty and wrong and sinful.  Even though she was doing it with her marital partner.

Samantha saw a therapist about this.  She blamed the church for the way she had become.  She no longer goes to church or calls herself a Christian.

What went wrong?  Was it the Church?  The Church's message?  Was God wrong or the Church?  What do you think?

When I read this story, I wanted to tell Samantha that she need not believe the church.  She should do what she believes to be right with God.  What is right or wrong is between us and God, and nobody else.  The church would try to help, but the church can get it wrong, just like anybody can make mistakes.

But I realise this would not be helpful.  What if, what she thinks to be right is actually wrong?  Even the church disagrees about some things, as the ordination of women, as in what elements are acceptable as sacrements, etc.  If anybody can be wrong, then Samantha herself can be wrong too!

I thought to counsel her to live by what she believes.  This sounds good.  But what if everybody be doing the right thing by doing this?  If that were the case, then Muslim mercenaries and murderers are doing the right thing by killing other people, because they believe that their victims should die.  But we who value life would say that what they believe is wrong.

So how should I counsel Samantha?  How would you do it?  How can we advise somebody who has values already ingrained in her person ... even if those values may be wrong?

What can God do?

21 August 2014

Heaping coals of fire

In Proverbs 25:21-22, the Scriptures tell us that
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 
 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
    and the Lord will reward you.
This is reiterated in Romans 12:20:
On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

What do you think this means?

I had heard it explained before, but I could not remember, so I recently looked it up.  It means to bless your enemies.

Apparently, in a culture where one carries things on their heads and where one can ask their neighbours for anything one needs without embarrassment, one is even able to ask for fire when one's own fire goes out.  So one's neighbour would heap coals of fire for one to carry home.

How unlike us, who thinks of wanting to hurt our enemies!

We would want to think of avoiding one's enemies, or harming the enemy in some way.  But this is not the way of the Lord.  The Lord would want us to bless our enemies the way we want to bless our neighbours.  The promise is that the Lord would reward us if we do.

These proverbs are generally true.  A recent story I read was of a Japanese pilot who played a major role in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in the battle that started World War II.  This pilot later came to know Jesus.  His change of heart led him to love his enemies, and he was rewarded.

But how unlike us, who would naturally wish to fear our enemies, or hate them, or wish bad things on them.

How would you feel towards the ISIS if you were one of the victims?  Or related to one of them?

Or if you have been raped? Or in some other way abused?

How do we love our enemies? How did Jesus do it?  How should we do it?  Why?

Would you love your enemies the way Jesus loves you?

16 August 2014

Decluttering

Joshua Becker wrote of the virtues of having a smaller home.

He said that a smaller home is:
  • Easier to maintain and clean and less to decorate,
  • Because of the above, it gives the dwellers more time for other things like family bonding,
  • Less expensive and consequently less financially risky,
  • Mentally freeing, because a person with a smaller home would have less possessions to be concerned with,
  • Easier to sell the home later, as it is probably more affordable for its next owner.
Many people disagreed, citing reasons why bigger homes are advantageous.  Eg.
  • More space.
  • Better price.
  • Family not always in each others' space.
  • Room for stuff.
  • Etc.
What do you believe?  What are your values with regards to this aspect of life?

Michael later shared the following questionaire with me:

"1. Do you have a hard time parting with items, even if you never use them or they’re broken?

2. Do you have many items around your house that don’t have a permanent home?

3. Do you tend to make pile of things, to be dealt with at a future time, and these piles often linger for more than a few days?

4. Are there areas in your home (the dining room table, for instance) that must be cleared off before they can be sued for their intended purpose?

5. Do you save things often because you are concerned about how you will feel if you need them in the future and no longer have them?

6. Do you often save things without a clear idea of how you’ll use them in the future?

7. Do you still have items that you once bought with the intention of giving them away as gifts?


8. Do you have boxes of possessions that have moved with you from home to home but you’ve never gone through?

9. Do you often buy multiples of the same items because you’ve forgotten you have it?
"
The more "yes" one gives to these questions, the more inclined one is to hoarding tendancies.

Are you a  hoarder?  Is hoarding a good part of living?

It is natural to accumulate stuff as one settles in a place for a longer period of time.  But how does one manage to live more simply?  Is hoarding necessarily bad?  Or, what is good about it?

What was Jesus' attitude towards earthly possessions?

13 August 2014

Tweeting Scripture

I have been playing this game on Twitter for a number of years already.

If a Bible verse excites me, I would tweet it.  Or, if I think of a Bible verse that fit in the context of what somebody else has tweeted, I would tweet that verse as a response.

It excites me when enough people "favourite" or "retweet" such tweets.

Does this imply that the Bible is relevant today?

It seems that less people are quoting Scripture nowadays, even though the Bible has been a most quoted book in the past.  Is this a false impression?

If the Bible were to be quoted, then which language/version would be best to use?

Do we make an effort to memorise the Scriptures the way our grandparents used to?  Or the way persecuted church members do?

Does the Bible contain God's word?  Or are they just words that contain inspiring thoughts?  Is it any more relevant than other scriptures, eg. the Hindu Vedas or the Islamic Quran?

What do you believe?  Why?

07 August 2014

Support money

Where does money come from?  It doesn't grow on trees.  What do we do to get it?  How much of it do we deserve?

At a partnership development workshop, I learned that there are two ways whereby one is able to establish an income:
  • From trading something else for it: One may be earning a salary, where one exchanges one's time, intellect, strength and youthfulness for one's wage.  Alternatively, one may be trading goods (illegal arms, toys, clothing, food) for money, or trading money (foreign exchange, bullion, stocks) for money and earning a profit for that.
  • From gifts.  Jesus lived on gifts.  So did the Levites.  Social welfare is a gift (nor a right, although some treat it that way).
Children may earn pocket money, in which case, it is a "trade" scenario.  Alternatively, they may be given pocket money, in which case, it would be a "gift" scenario.

In my culture, gift income is unusual, except in the case of charity.  But it is a necessary one for church and church workers to live on.  What is it like where you come from?  I have lived in some places where living on gift income is more normal.

I am now at the stage where, in the light of my circumstances, I am needing to choose between these two options.  What would you advise me to do?  What would you do?

30 July 2014

Christians against the world

Why do Christians have this feeling that they are the minority, and that the world has trouble accepting what they believe?  Why do Christians have a victim mentality?

Ed Stetzer reckons that the church is not dying in the USA, just changing.  He lumps Christians into three groups:
  • Cultural Christians - people who call themselves Christians because their world tells them they are.  They do not practice a vibrant faith, even though most of them come from a Christian heritage.  These guys make up about a third of the 75% who call themselves Christians in USA.
  • Congregational Christians - people who attend church, but deep down, they are just like the cultural Christians.  These guys make up the second third of the 75% who call themselves Christians.
  • Convictional Christians - these guys have come to a point in their lives where their faith in Christ has been sealed.  Jesus changed their lives, and their lives become oriented around their faith in Him.  These guys make up the final third of that 75% who call themselves Christians.
In Stetzer's opinion, the number of convicted Christians has not declined.  But as culture has changed, those who call themselves "Christian" without the real and deep conviction are changing the appearance of the statistics.

Would you agree with him?

I think his description is similar to Jesus' Parable of the Sower.  It makes sense to me.

On a world-wide basis, though, we see a lot of opposition towards the Christian faith.  Robert Morgan wrote stories from Northern Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Eritrea, Egypt, Turkey, North Korea, India, Burma, Afghanistan and many other places, where the church is being persecuted.  But Christians expect persecution, as Jesus told them they would, so such is really not a surprise.

Why is the world against Christianity?  Is it bad?  Is it a threat?  What do you think?

28 July 2014

Value of human life

Reflecting on recent news events, Waleed Aly wrote a comment about the value of human life.

It seems that we, humans, object to the fact that that lives can be terminated unexpectedly, as what happened in the recent MH17 saga.  We seem to expect that life would go on without end ... or, at least, we be warned and be able to gradually say goodbye before the end arrives.  We seem to think that it is a violation of our rights to die unexpectedly.

Then, it doesn't matter as much when some people die, as compared to others.  If Palestinians or Gazans or South Sudanese that we do not know die, it does not matter - they are not from the rich Western world, and we are not related to them.  We care more for the people we know, or those who have aligned themselves to us in some way.

Do you think that this is true?  Are values about life like what Aly said?  Should it be?

How does God feel when somebody dies?  Does He care?

What do you believe?

16 July 2014

Facebook unethical?

Facebook has hit the news again.

Anna Lemind wrote about the hidden psychological experiments they conduct.  Without informing their users, they have been gathering statistics about the positive and negative emotions expressed by the users through keywords and emoticons.

Violet Blue said that Facebook "tampered with the emotional well-being of 689,003 users" as its experiments sought to find ways of spreading, or avoiding the spread of, emotions en masse.

Peter Aziz reckons that Facebook's mobile app gives the company too much information about us.  The app tells Facebook where we are, who our contacts are, what their contact details are, what we photograph and text to each other.

What do you think?

Are these guys unnecessarily cautious?  Is Facebook unethical in the way it handles the information it carries on its servers?  Are they not allowed to perform data mining on the information that sits on their hardware?

Or are they fine to do what they want with data that we have given them?  We did, after all, agree to give them that data when we signed up to use their app and their platform, didn't we?

Has the company overstepped its boundaries, or are they fine?

09 July 2014

How to handle asylum seekers?

I recently learned that it is illegal to send asylum seekers back to their home countries.

It is also very cruel.  These people have been victimised in their homeland.  They are fleeing some kind of terror that they have faced over there.  To turn them back to the horror that they are trying to escape from ... imagine yourself in their shoes and you would understand how unkind it is to do that.

However, some asylum seekers are not really running away from anything.  They are just looking for better economic prospects.  They are illegal immigrants.  Some may also be terrorists seeking a way into the host countries that they will later terrorise.

And some potential host nations also lack the resources to take in these people.  Nobody has the right to demand that any host country take them in.  Asylum seekers should wait for host countries to accept them - not demanding or expecting to be welcomed any more than the people who apply for migration.

So what can we do with asylum seekers?  Send them to detention centers and process them?  That seems to be the way most are handled.  But this method should also be temporary - nobody should have to stay in detention centers and be in the processing stages for the rest of their lives.  Otherwise, detention centers are just a guise for lifetime imprisonment.

How should we handle asylum seekers?  How can we give them refuge and care?  Who are genuine and who are not?  What do you think the world should handle this problem?

What do you think?

05 July 2014

Illegal to be poor

In Malaysia recently, Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor tried to clean up the city of Kuala Lumpur by banning soup kitchens.  He also forbade people to give alms to city's beggars.  His rationale seems to be that the presence of the poor and homeless makes the city look bad.

However, his words have been receiving a lot of negative backlash.  Doesn't Islam encourage giving alms to the poor?  Shouldn't the city be looking after these unfortunate ones, instead of making their lives more miserable?  What is the government doing to aid such people?

Isn't the cost of bureaucracy and corruption higher than the cost of feeding the poor?  Why can't rich bureaucrats open their homes to the poor to get them off the streets?  Is it a crime to be poor?

What do you think the solution of the problem is?

It seems to me that this is not just a Malaysian problem, but quite a universal one.  Countries like to look good by hiding away the fact that there are people among us who are less well off.  Social welfare schemes try to skimp on providing for these as they manage their budgets, as they try to entice the richer with tax cuts.  However, the poor will always be among us, and they need assistance.

In what way can we assist?  We say that "if we give a man a fish, we feed him for a day, but if we teach him to fish, we can feed him for a lifetime".  Is it possible to educate the poor and send them on the way to self-sufficiency?  Would that work for everybody?

How can we care for these people who need help?  Is it fair to give them money for not doing anything, at the expense of those who work hard for what they have?

What can nations do, as they struggle with their national budgets?

What would Jesus do?

28 June 2014

Muslims turned Christian

What happens when a Muslim changes his mind and decides to follow Y'shua?  What do you think happens?

In some communities, people have the freedom to choose.  In other communities, the convert is treated as having committed a serious crime.  He might be excommunicated, imprisoned, or punished for this choice.

I recently met a family of refugees who left their home country because of their faith.

My recent reading, though, comes from a more spiritual angle.  The convert felt peace, blessed for having a relationship with God.  He said "the Gospel never ceases to overwhelm me".  He continues to fellowship with the Muslims.  He will fast with them this Ramaddan, but more with the hope of sharing love with them than to be seen as a Muslim because of what he is doing.

Can we then say that it is worth becoming a Christian in spite the difficulties and oppositions from one's family and peer group?  Does the peaceful relationship with God compensate for this difficulty?

What about the hereafter?  Is it worth giving it up for an eternity with God?

What do you believe?  Why?

24 June 2014

Life Plan

Harleena Singh advises us to have goals to work towards as we plan our lives.  She says that "having a purpose in life is like knowing your destination, where you’ve to go".  She advises us to follow our dreams, fulfill our destiny, work towards what we think we should live for.  We must set short-term goals that lead us to long-term goals.

Does such advise seem familiar to you?  Is she "preaching to the choir"?  What are the goals, what is the purpose that you should live for?

Do you think you can plan your life the way she advises?  How?  Or, why not?

Does God have anything to do with your goals?  Is God your priority and your goal?  Or does He get in the way of what you think you should do?  If He gets in the way, then is He right to do so?

What do you believe?

19 June 2014

Children and online games

I heard a presentation of Collette Smart last night.  The following are the significant points I took home:
  • Parents never wish for child to just be entertained.  They wish for more than that.
  • However, today, people want to be entertained as though being entertained is normal. It wasn't like this before.  People struggled with life more.
  • Do not be afraid of boredom.  Boredom creates creativity.
  • Triangular parenting refers to the triangle of love,boundaries and consistency.  Consistency the hardest.
  • It is a false sense of security to expose child to Internet but not to road.
  • We cannot deprive children from technology.  It is part of their world. We just need to experiment and know how to handle it.
  • Kids love the technology because of fun and social.  Parents use it for banking and shopping.
  • 2/3 children have no rules re their gadgets
  • There is active vs passive technology time. Active time is using technology for paying bills, research, uni assignments, etc. Passive is using the technology for games, videos, etc. entertainment.
  • Games are a social currency these days.  Children talk to their friends re the games they play.  Excessive play not good.
  • Must get devices out of the childrens' bedrooms.  We cannot look over their shoulder all the time.
  • Children look for boundaries. Would not parent their kids re technology the way they have been parented.
  • Privacy to some young people means private from Mum & Dad, not from everybody else.
  • Fun-failure factor - enough fun, but not too easy, so have challenge. And success after challenge is conquered.
  • Lack of sleep puts body clock out of sync.  Teens need 8.5-9 hr sleep. Younger children 10.5-11 hr.
    Technology is a contributor to poor sleep.
  • Pornography is looking for them, they are not looking for it. They stumble on it. Hence need for boundaries.
  • Put good habits in place now, not later when it is harder.
  • You are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice.
  • Recommend 1-2 hr passive technology time/day. 0 for < 2 yo
  • Set age restrictions for apps.
  • Let children play one main game at a time.
  • Discourage distributed play, binge play safer.
  • Know your children's passwords
  • Talk to them re the content of their games.  Sons who play violent games with Dads tend to be less aggressive compared to those who don't, as they talk to Dads as they play.
  • Negotiate a technology contract with your children, allowing technology at age-appropriate levels.
What do you think?  Do you agree with her?  How do you handle your children and their technology?

13 June 2014

Grandparents parenting

Harleena Singh lists the following reasons why grandparents are playing a bigger parenting role with their grandchildren these days compared to the past:
  • Compensating for the effect of death or disability of a parent;
  • Helping as parents go through divorce, separation, etc;
  • Reduce the children's contact with their parents because parents have drug abuse or mental disability type of problems;
  • Catering for a home-like experience to help shape the children's cultural identity;
  • Support because one or both parents are in prison;
  • Help children out in cases of parental abuse;
  • Help children abandoned by their parents, or when parents are away in military service;
  • Help out their children in the case of teenage pregnancy;
I think all these are valid reasons, and I appreciate grandparents' help.  However, I also see that in a lot of these situations, it is because something went wrong in the lives of the parents, that the grandparents step in to cater for the children.

Is this right?  Should parents be more responsible?  Should the responsibility be undertaken by grandparents, do you think?

I see that sometimes, it is because both parents are employed full-time, or working overseas, that parents take on the parenting role.  It might be greed for more money that this happens, although Harleena also mentions military service as one of the reasons.  I see also that as the cost of living in the cities increase, that it might not be financial greed, but purely necessity driving this trend.

What do you think?  Is this a good trend, or a not-so-good one?  Is the economic reason a valid one?  If this trend is not good, then what would be a better solution?

04 June 2014

Racism in the days of the war

The movie "Small Island" carries a story of five people:
  • Hortense Roberts, who grew up in Jamaica.  She dreams of living in England, as she has read a lot about this "mother" country.  Her mother left her to grow up in the Roberts household, and it was there where she was initially educated. She also dreams of marrying Michael Roberts, a guy from the household where she grew up.  Hortense later trained as a teacher.
  • Michael Roberts, who grew up with Hortense but is does not notice her affections.  His father is a devout Christian, but Michael, after being educated, set his sights on beyond Jamaica and his Christian roots and left his early upbringing.
  • Gilbert Joseph, who is also from Jamaica.  He wished to be a lawyer, but did not have enough money to study law.  However, he is an accomplished driver and mechanic.  He chose to fight as an ally of the British army in order to open up opportunities towards achieving his dream of becoming a lawyer.
  • Queenie Bligh, who grew up in a piggery farm in England, but moved to the city of London for the city comforts and opportunities tht she preferred to the life of working with pigs.  She has no prejudice against the dark skinned Jamaicans, unlike many of the other English people around her.
  • Bernard Bligh, a banker of London.  Bernard married Queenie because he loves her and wants to give her what she dreams.  He is one of the English people who wishes to not mix with the dark skinned people of his day.
Michael and Gilbert ended up visiting England for a time during the Second World War.  Bernard gets assigned to India for a time, all three being part of the RAF.  Michael and Gilbert meet Queenie at this time, and the friendship continues to bless the three of them even after the war.  Bernard disappears, much to Queenie's concern.  Queenie ends up carrying Michael's child, while Michael moves on to "greener pastures" in Canada without her.  Gilbert chooses to leave Jamaica to settle in England, and Hortense, after giving up hope on Michael, makes Gilbert a deal so that he would marry her and send for her after he finds a home there.

Some striking scenes in the story shows how
  • During the war, the white-skinned Brits assumed that all the dark-skinned people are of the same lot, not realising that some identify themselves with Africa, others with America and yet others with Jamaica.
  • The dark-skinned people were discriminated against in terms of finding accommodation and jobs after the war, even though they fought alongside the British during the war,
  • The British assume that all dark-skinned people are from Africa, many have not even heard of Jamaica, even though Jamaica is a Commonwealth country and received British education,
  • Though the Jamaicans consider England as the "mother" nation and learned about her, many of the English did not know anything about Jamaica,
  • Some Jamaicans think of England as a lovely country because of the education they received, not realising the discrimination or the ugly side until they have lived there,
I wonder if this is still true of England today.  Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?  Are people kinder to each other now?  Do people still segregate themselves based on colour and country?  Do other nations still consider England as "mother"?

Is anything wrong with the way things were in those days?  Is anything wrong with the way things are today?  Has cultural values changed for the better?  Or worse?

Are people all the same, or are there differences?  How should we handle the similarities and differences?  What do you think?

29 May 2014

Australian Federal Budget

How do you take bad news?  Reprimands?  Being told that you were bad and need to pull your socks up?

Many of us don't like this.  We like to think that everything is good.  That we'd get top marks in our exam.  That we are good at everything we try.  We do not make any mistakes.  Nobody experiences poverty.  We can spend and enjoy life as we wish.

So when we are told that we have been spending too much, that our lives are not in order, that we have to tighten our belts and cut costs, we feel bad.

I think this is what happened when the recent Australian budget was announced.  People did not feel happy about the cost-cutting that the Prime Minister and Treasurer announced.  People like their affluent lifestyle, even living beyond their means.  Borrowing more than what they can afford.

But people cannot live like that long term.  We don't like to improve, we like to think we are already all right.  We may not be good, but we like to think we are.

Does this sound true to you?  Do you think that our human nature is like this?  Please tell me what you think.

If this is true, then how should we cope with reality?

Is there anything we need to get right within ourselves so to be acceptable before God?  To ourselves?  Or are we already so good that we do not need God?  God need not exist in our thinking?

25 May 2014

Price of success

Did it ever occur to you what it costs to others for you to be able to buy things at the prices you do?

Many years ago, I heard that soccer balls and basket balls were made in India.  This is because labour costs is cheap enough, and people living in the richer worlds can afford these balls, while they couldn't, if the Indians were paid according to the wage scale in the home countries of the buyers.

The same applied to clothing and manufacturing.  Rarely is one able to buy t-shirts that are made in Australia these days, as the Bangladeshi, Chinese and Vietnamese ones have overtaken the market.  Even the manufacturing of cars has become largely off-shored, or at least, it seems to be trending that way.  But then again, there is an oversupply of new cars for the world market, so it kind of makes sense to lessen the production in some countries, in spite the costs to the jobs and economy.

More recently, I read about the electronics industry, where it is not just for financial economics that iPhones and mobile are made in China.  There are also health issues.  Apparently, there is a degree of pollution that comes out as a by-product of the electronics industry.  The workers in these factories are exposed to carcinogens.  The Chinese economy is set to overtake that of the USA next year, but even so, people are living in conditions where the level of pollution is 1000% higher than what the WHO deems to be safe.

Are we shocked?  Should we be?  Is this something to think about?  Pray about?  Or not care about since it is somebody else's problem somewhere else?

The article makes the situation of the factory works akin to those of slaves.  Have they overstated the issue?  We pray for and protest against slavery in many situations, do we also care about the situations of factory workers?

What can we do about it?  Can we afford the higher price of clothing, electronics and other consumables if people were paid at a higher rate?

What do you think?  How can we show care for the less privileged around the world?

20 May 2014

Christian Muslim Friendships

Dr Asri Zainul Abidin believes that Christians are not really a threat.  He said that "he closest people to the Muslims are Christians. The Quran‎ says you will find that the people who love Muslims the most are Christians."

He thinks that:
  • It is normal for religious leaders to invite their friends to join in what they believe to be "the true religion".  Muslims, or anybody else for that matter, should not not feel threatened to receive such invitations, regardless of whether they are in Malaysia, England, or anywhere else.  It is just friendship.
  • Muslims should feel afraid of militant Christians.  Not in Malaysia, anyway.  Christians have never instigated any attacks on Muslims.
  • NGOs naturally want to promote themselves.  So if they are connected with the Christian faith, they will promote that as well.  As they have not been "over the top" about it, Muslims should tolerate rather than feel threatened.
  • As Islam is the true religion, Muslims should be worried that they are not doing their work properly rather than to be worried that they would be crushed by the outsiders.
  • It will be good for people to live harmoniously rather than to start a civil war in Malaysia, especially when there is no real threat towards the Muslims. 
 Contrast these thoughts to those of Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.  Abdullah thinks that:
  • Churches are saying threatening things about Muslims.  Muslims should disguise themselves to infiltrate the churches to hear these things for themselves.
  • The New Testament stories of Jesus are based on hearsay, and Christians have been misled.
What do you think?  Are Christians threatening?  Do Muslims in Malaysia really have a threat to deal with from the Christians?

What if the Muslims who disguise and infiltrate the churches hear something that they like?  Will they be allowed to convert to Christianity if they do?

I once read a hypothetical scenario.  Not in its exact words, the story went something like this.  Suppose your car broke down in a dangerous part of town, at night time.  You come out of the car, but you cannot fix the problem straight away.  You see a group of rough-looking youth walking towards you.  Would it make a difference if you realise that they were carrying Bibles?

Would it?  What do you believe about Christians and their faith?

12 May 2014

Prefer male bosses

Aida Ahmad's survey found that many people prefer male bosses because they are less emotional.

Apparently, female bosses are more likely to micro-manage and appear less level headed in the way they express themselves.

Would you agree?  Is this stereotype generally true?  (I am sure that in such cases, there will always be exceptions to the rule.)  Does this generalisation hold true on a world-wide scale, or is it just in certain cultures and countries?

Is leadership male?  Why?

Does this apply only to the workplace?  Or also at home?

What do you believe?  Why?

04 May 2014

Law does not reflect culture

Apparently, there is some disparity between the Islamic restrictions, called "hudud", and some of the present values of today's society.

Some issues in current discussion in Malaysia are:
 I wonder if the "hudud" is open subject to interpretation the way the "fatwa" is.

What do you understand?  Would "hudud" bring society back into the dark ages?  Would that be good for society, or bad?

Does value change over time?  Should it change?

Is there an absolute right and wrong?  Is that in the form of "hudud" or something else?

Which laws are in accordance with God's ideals, and not human abuse of power in the systems?  Is there one?

27 April 2014

Be like Muslims

Bill Cosby was quoted to have said:
I am a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things:
* They don't smoke
* They don't drink alcohol
* They protect their women
* They command respect
What do you think of this statement?  Would you agree with him?

Is Cosby an expert in such matters for this statement to be taken as a fact?

Why do you think Muslims are "intentionally misunderstood"?  Or are they just misunderstood, howbeit unintentionally?  Or perhaps understood correctly?

Is this a plot to draw people to consider converting to Islam?

Do you think Muslims behave well?  Do they really not smoke, not drink alcohol, protect their women and command respect as what Cosby said?  Are these really virtues?  Do they teach their children these things?

Do these characteristics represent all Muslims? Or just some of them?  Do non-Muslims uphold such values also?

I am not saying that Cosby is wrong.  I am just surprised to see  that a web page puts such emphasis on what he said.  I am not sure if Muslims are really misunderstood or that Cosby's description is right.  I think that Christians should respect Muslims, and vice-versa ... but we should believe and serve the One True God and not be taken in by words of respect that may turn out to be deceptive.

What do you think?

22 April 2014

Read the Bible seriously

Some friends and I read Psalm 19:7-14 together tonight.

As we came to understand the passage together, the following points seemed relevant to us:
  • We should take God's word seriously.  Think it through.  Understand it.  Don't question it as something to be trifled with or for making jokes out of, but to understand it as coming from somebody with power and authority.
  • Sometimes, we do not know what is right and true, unless another points it out to us.  God's point of view is even more relevant than that of another person.
  • We do not like to be corrected, but we will appreciate it when we see that it is beneficial.
  • We may dread correction at first, but when can come to love it when we see how it changes us for good.
  • We need to be kept from willful sin.  The way this works is through constantly seeing things God's way, and choosing His way instead of our own.
How unlike commercials and the way society works!  We would rather think of ourselves as right, and do things our own way!

But what do you think?  Is there any other book that guides us towards God's way other than the Bible?  Do other scriptures work also?  Is God's way really relevant?  Isn't our own way good enough?

What if we misunderstand God's way, and come up with many interpretations of it?

How do we get it right?  What benefit is it to get it right?  Is there really any right and wrong?

What do you believe?  Why?

18 April 2014

Blood moon

The world is getting excited again, as the sighting of the blood moon coincides with the Jewish Passover.

It reminds people of these prophecies from the Bible:

  • I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. (Joel 2:30-31, NIV)
  • The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. (Acts 2:20, NIV)
  • I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, (Revelation 6:12, NIV)

Blood moons are set to happen at both Passover and Sukot in 2014 and 2015.  Is there a significance to this?

Some people seem to think so.

Stakelbeck cites history, where:

1492: Spain expelled the Jews, Columbus discovers America which became a safe haven for the Jews.
1948: Israel reborn as a nation.
1967: Israel won the 6-day war.

all happened during the time when blood moons were seen.

Perhaps this season's blood moons has something to do with Israel, Syria and Egypt?

Perhaps the coincidence of blood moons with Jewish festive calendars is not so special.  Since the calendars are based on the lunar cycles, and since blood moons are the effect of eclipses of the Earth over the Moon, perhaps it is only natural that the coincidences happen when they happen, as Faulkner analyses.

What do you think?  Is there any significance to blood moons?  Are they just astronomical phenomenons that bear no relevance? Or does God, who uses Sun, moon and stars for signs, tell us something through them?

Do they, at the very least, signify something about Bible prophesy to you?

09 April 2014

Two laws

What if the nation where you lived in carried two laws?

One law applies to the people regarded as the elite group.  These people are separated based on either their gender, race, religion, royalty or something else.  There is a code of conduct that is expected of them, but they have privileges that allow them to conduct themselves differently from everybody else.

The other law applies to everybody else.  Everybody must abide by this law or else be punished, unless they are a part of the "elite" group.

The elite group may not be criticised or corrected by anybody else, other than other members of the elite group.  Otherwise, the offender would be accused of insolence.

Do you think this is fair?  Do you think this is tolerable?

I think that maybe, if the differences between the two are few and minor, then perhaps I could live with that.  Eg. British royalty.  But I am not sure I can, if the rules were greatly different or if they were oppressive.  That is why I am bothered as I read of Egypt.  I understand that some people live in such circumstances, and I wish life were easier in those places.

Eg. the understanding that Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims, that men have more rights than women, and that owners have more rights than slaves imply that Christian girls may be kidnapped, sold as slaves, forced to marry, raped and forced to convert.  I don't think that is fair.  Do you?  I think laws should force people to be kinder than this.

Applying this "twin-headed cultural hydra" in another way, a Christian teacher was shot last week, for reprimanding a Muslim student who was smoking.  If smoking is against the school rules, than the Christian teacher was acting within his area of responsibility and his rights.  But his was taken as insolence, since he should have been submissive and not think he has the power to correct a Muslim.

What if the laws changed such that we can't correct our own children because of the rights given to them?  Would not the country go crazy?

I understand that the Hindu caste had such a system in the old days.  I understand that such culture exists in many parts of the world.  I just wonder, coming from my culture - how I would live if God sent me to such places.

In your opinion, are such systems fair?  Just?  Right?  Can we accept culture in whatever form it comes in, and treat every culture as okay and tolerable?  Or do some need to change?  What do you think?

02 April 2014

Travel while it is worth it

Travel before it is too late.  The world is changing.  It will become so uniform one day that it will no longer be a thrill to see another country or culture.

This seems to be the message of Ben Groundwater's article.  He thinks that "as the world changes, it's becoming the same".  His notion is that as people from all over the world have moved to live in other places around the world, there becomes elements of every culture in every culture.  There is Chinese food served in every country I can think of.  There is McDonalds in every major city I have been to, other than Ulaan Bator and Phnom Penh.  (Although, maybe, McDonalds could be in those places now as well.)

Unlike a few centuries ago, where Italy was more uniquely Italian, China was more uniquely Chinese, etc.  If the trend continues, multiculturalism will be everywhere.  Multiculturalism might also collapse to have less variety, and the whole world eventually lives with the same understanding of culture.

Do you think this might be possible?  Would this be a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion, if it happens?

Can you imagine the world being gay and anti-gay at the same time?  Muslim, monotheistic, and Hindu, polytheistic, at the same time?  Or maybe atheistic instead?  Can India and Pakistan live with each other?

Or will we just blow each other up and the uniform culture is actually no culture at all?

As it is, we have city vs. rural cultures in every country.  I see that what Ben says is more true about cities around the world - they have enough similarities that traveling salesmen and other professionals have the same feel of hotels and airlines and food everywhere they go.  But out in the rural areas, things are less similar.  And out in the "real" world of the cities, things are also quite different.

As many migrate to the cities, things may be more similar in the future too.

As it is, we do not agree on how to use English, but we use English similarly enough to be understood by other English speakers.  How do we incorporate other languages?  And foods?  And dress-codes?  Etc?

Is it like the 3rd law of thermodynamics that says that unless energy from an external source lifts us up, we just plateau to a naturally uniform state?  How long do you think it might it be before the world collapses into a single culture?

What would you miss if the world collapses into the culture that is served to us in aeroplanes and hotels?

26 March 2014

Restrained by culture

An article in the Sun-Herald earlier this month said that women desire sexual intercourse more than how they let on.

The article featured Daniel Bergner, who wrote about experiments done by Meredith Chivers on human arousal.  Subjects watched different kinds of pornography as their genitals were measured to see how aroused they were.  Subjects noted how aroused they felt as these measurements were taken.

Bergner and Chivers concluded that men and women were similarly aroused sexually, but women are less likely to admit it.  It is as though it is culturally taboo for women to feel aroused in some situations, so they feel the need to hide their shame.  Culture allows men to be less restrained in this aspect.  They promote the idea that when the society's expectations allow it more, then women express their sexual desires more openly.

Do you believe them?  Is this really true?  Are we sexually inhibited by cultural expectations?  Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?  What do you think?

Is the intensity of women's sexual arousal related to their ovulation cycles/

Should we be more honest about our sexuality, or should we be less open about it?  Why?

Would more openness lead to a higher rate of rape, unwanted pregnancies and other undesirable sex-related crimes?  Really?

What is appropriate expectation and behaviour with regards to the sexual aspect of our lives?  What should the expectation of society and culture be?

What does God say about this?  Does it matter what God says?