Work ethics

Liz Ryan summarised it as follows:

Five things we owe our employers:

• Focused and earnest work at the time we are paid to work,
• Your good intentions on the job,
• Respect for people, facilities and equipment at work,
• Work integrity,
• Your best possible care to the external party you deal with while at work.

Five things we don't owe our employers:

• Your health.  Don't prioritise work so much that you lose sleep, etc over it.
• Your pretentiousness.  Don't say words you think your employer wants to hear if you don't mean them.
• Unearned loyalty.  Employers cannot tell you who to be loyal to.
• Details of your personal life.  If you can't do something because in encroaches on your personal time, you should be able to explain that without explaining why.
• Your soul.  It is a business relationship.  Your employer does not have the right to drive your whole life.

Would you agree?  How do you set boundaries between your personal life and your work?  Do you give your best at work because that is what you are paid for?

The Economist reckons that we are feeling the need to be busy because of work expectations.  We think we have less time as we feel rushed at work, even though, in reality, we are actually having more leisure time compared to before.  We feel the need to be frugal with our time when we are paid by the hour.  We are afraid of being financially poor if we do not work hard enough.  However, reality is actually different from these perceptions.

Do you feel this way?  How do you avoid this trap of not being as free with your time as you should be?

Do you have time for family, for God, for recreation besides work?  How do you balance time between work and leisure and have good ethics in what you do at work?

Celebrating confusion

I liked how John Burton called the case of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner "celebrating confusion".

Bruce was apparently born male, but had surgery to make himself look female.  This made headlines in world news in the last week.  Bruce seemed to have regretted his decision, at least for a moment, when he said "What did I just do? What did I just do to myself?".  However, the media seems to be promoting his action as a trend.

Actually, the case of transgender has been around for years.  What Bruce did is not so new.  Nor is it to something to glorify, in my opinion.

Michael Brown talks about it as being fluid something the world things as being desirable, even if unnatural.   It is as though we should be neither male nor female, even though God created us as male and female - Genesis 1:27).  That we should maim ourselves to identify with the maim, not because of something out of our control, but because we choose to.  That we should be able to switch identities at a whim.

Some say that we shouldn't care what others do to themselves.  Michael argues otherwise.  We should protect against people getting hurt, committing suicide, dismembering their bodies, etc.

What is the world coming to?  How should we live in this world?  Are there values, ethics, right and wrong that we need to protect?  Or can people have the right to do to themselves anything they like - even to the point of maiming or killing themselves?

I would lump issues of abortion together with this.  Should people be allowed to kill foetii because of unwanted pregnancies?  What of the lives of the young?  is that murder?

Surely, people have the right to decide some things about their own bodies, eg. to cloth ourselves and to keep ourselves healthy.  This is probably a responsibility too.  But how much right should we have?  Can we really do anything we like with the bodies that our God has given us?

Travellers etiquette

Some travel tips suggest that to be polite, one should try to avoid:

• Snoring,
• Bumping others with one's luggage,
• Putting on makeup in public.

I was not successful trying to relocate my source for those tips.  Instead, I found the following list:

• Arrive early
• Stay calm even when receiving bad news
• Dress and pack sensibly with thought for security checks
• Create your own environment with shades, MP3 player, etc if you don't like what is provided
• Be thoughtful of others when taking calls on cellphone
• Share the arm rests
• Be considerate towards grumpy adults and tired children
• Reading over another's shoulder is rude
• Pack your own lunch if you have to, but avoid smelly foods if you do
• You can't choose your neighbours, but you can choose to be comfortable anyway.

What do you think?  Are there things you would like to add to or remove from these lists?  How should travellers today behave?

Is it any different from before?

How much

How much money do we actually need?

Can we give it all away?  Or do we need to save for our future?

Too much savings is bad.  It means we are not sharing or giving.

But not saving is irresponsible.  As we do need something to retire on.

How do we budget?

Financial advisors tell us to set aside something for daily expenses, something for giving, something for contingencies, something for holidays and something for the future.  This can be easier if you have a fixed income.  But not if your income situation is not stable or large.  And many of us are in that situation.

How would you advise in this situation?

Where does God and family come into your consideration in this issue of budgets?

Do you budget?  Successfully?

If not, then can you imagine the difficulty faced by a Federal Budget?  It is hard to predict the future.  It is hard to line up national values, as different people have different opinions.

What would you do if you were the treasurer?

Bad words

Jill lists 45 words not to be used in writing.

These words fall into three categories:

• Self promoting puffery,
• Technical tripe, and
• Creative crap

 I can see how the "self-promoting puffery" words are a turn-off, although I don't know why.

I find the "technical tripe" and "creative crap" words abundant today in the ICT industry.  They almost fall into the category of "jargon", except that they don't carry meaning deep enough to turn people off.

What do you think?

Are there words or phrases that you abhor?  Do you know why these words turn you off?

Are you on the look out for how can you express yourself better?

Mothers Day Gift

The Australian government plans to offer more rebates to attract mothers back to work instead of staying home with their children.

The Sunday Telegraph described this as a Mother's Day gift.  But is it really a "gift" when you think about it?

The intention is to get mothers back to work.  This is because they want to drive the economy further.  They want to reduce the budget deficit.

I respect these intentions.  However, what about the children?  Children need their mothers.  To force mothers away from their children by using this economic tool can be detrimental to family health.  Childcare helps, but they do not replace the mothers.  The parents are supposed to the primary responsibility for the children.  Bible verses as Proverbs 29:17 and 1 Timothy 5:8 assert the responsibility of parents towards their children.

Surely, taking both parents away from their children is not good in the light of this?  Surely parents should not be so caught up chasing after the economic dollar that their children be neglected?

On the other hand, perhaps mothers have been taking too much leave allowance.  Perhaps less leave allowance is okay, especially given the nation's budget deficit.

Where should we draw the line?

How should one balance between the need for money and the need for family time?  How should one balance between loving and nurturing one's children vs. being away from them to fulfill work responsibilities?

What do you think?

Life spared

Last week's execution in Indonesia hit world headlines.

Firstly, there was a lady, Mary Jane Veloso who was given a reprieve.  Somebody turned herself in in the Philippines, claiming that she tricked Mary Jane into carrying drugs.  Her claim is presently under confession.  It gave Mary Jane more time to live, even so.

Why did she do it?  Was it her conscience?  Her generosity?

How would Mary Jane feel about it?  Relieved?  Angry?  That she deserves the reprieve that she has been given?  Or that the reprieve is a surprise, but great blessing?

When Jesus died on the cross for us, He not only gave us a reprieve, He gave us a new life.  How do we feel about that?  Relieved?  Angry?  That we deserve this?  Or are we grateful for the blessing?

Two others who did not get a reprieve were Australians.

1. Andrew Chan was a supervisor at a catering company in Sydney.  He felt that life was not going anywhere.  He was a drug usser.  When given the chance to join a gang and use his leadership skills in the drug trade instead of being a consumer, he he took the opportunity and became a ringleader in the Bali Nine.
2. Myuran Sukumaran worked in a mailroom at the Sydney Passport Office.  He was attracted to the nightclub scene, where his friends had access to women, booze and fast, expensive cars.  He saw that he could not have this lifestyle unless he had more money.  He was also a martial arts expert.  When given the opportunity to join a gang to quicken his money-earning ability, he took it.

These guys were tempted into the illegal drug trade as they wanted to expedite their careers and their earnings.  They got arrested and tried for these activities about 10 years ago.

Interestingly, the other members of the Bali Nine received life sentences - these guys got death sentences even though they had less drugs on them.  Andrew Chan did not have any drugs on him at the time of his arrest.

Might they have thought that their sentences were unfair?  That God was unfair?  Would you have thought like that if you had been in their shoes?  Would you have been upset and remorseful and hated the world?

Chan and Sukumaran later met Jesus while in prison, awaiting their execution.  This seems to make a world of a difference to them.

1. Chan used his leadership personality to serve his fellow inmates as a Christian priest,
2. Sukumaran completed an arts course at Curtin University.  He went on to introduce education courses to his fellow inmates.  He started computer classes for them, and was about to start accounting and legal studies for them also.
3. When executed, these guys and the others were singing "Amazing Grace" and "Bless the Lord O my soul".

They could have been in despair about getting executed.  They could have felt useless and unwilling to do anything helpful in their last days.  However, they chose to live to the max in their remaining days, and bless God and the people around them.

Is this what knowing Jesus is like?  Does Jesus make a difference to you like this as well?

Legal nudity

I read this expression on Sam's column.  He was writing about figure-hugging garments - tights - opague enough to be considered covering or clothing, but so sheer and leaving so little to imagination that it is almost as though the wearer is naked.

Why would someone wear such clothing?

In some countries, women cover up so much, that thy wear burka.  More flesh is shown in other cultures.  What dictates the boundaries of modesty?  Why are the definitions of modesty different in different societies?  Shouldn't they be the same?

Among some tribal people in the forests, for a woman to walk around topless in public is fine.  Not so in the civilised parts of the world, unless you were in a topless bar.

In the western world, women used to go out in dresses and skirts that covered the knees or further in a yester era.  Then "modernisation" came in.  Wearing mini-skirts, jeans and shorts became more acceptable.  As fashion, variety and newer fabrics came about, the trend now permits these "legal nudity" tights that Sam spoke of.

Have we gone too far?  Or not far enough?  What should the rules of modesty be?

Is this a case of inviting sexual provocation, and potentially sexual abuse?  Or not, given that society accepts it?

What do you think?

Unreasonable Science

A recent edition of National Geographic features topics where "science" may not be right.  Eg:

• Climate change may not really be happening, and if it is, it is not in the way that scientists think;
• Evolution never happened, it is a theory that has not been proven beyond all doubt;
• The moon landing was faked, it was a conspiracy;
• Vaccinations can lead to autism; and
• Genetically modified food is not really good for you.

The front cover of this magazine looks attractive, though sadly, as someone said, the people who need to know these things won't read this magazine.  They will just believe what they will want to believe or what the news media tells them.  They do not have the habitual inquiring mind to subscribe to magazines like National Geographic.

Do you think these comments are true?  People only understand science for what popular media tells them, rather than to examine the actual facts?

Is there a conspiracy behind what media informs?  A viewpoint twisted to influence the masses to think in a certain way, even when the viewpoint is an unproven theory?  And a contested one at that?

I understand that the masses came to believe that being "gay" is genetic and unavoidable, even though scientifically, it is yet to be proven that a gay gene exists.

And the evolution theory is taught at schools, even though the indesputable "missing link" between the different kinds of species has never been found.

Personally, I believe in the "scientific" method.  However, conclusions need to be checked against this method.  Inconclusive data should not be publicised as facts.  It would be deceiving the public if we were to do this.

Unfortunately, the need for grants and the attraction of the public to information and controversies lead us to believe some things, even though "science" does not actually validate those beliefs.

What do you believe?

Go sell all that you have ...

In Jesus' conversation with the Rich Young Ruler, we read (Mark 10:21-22)

Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

Thinking about it personally, I don't really blame the Rich Young Ruler.

I live in a culture which tells me to save up for my retirement.  Superannuation is compulsory.  Adding more to one's superannuation is advised, so that one may live comfortably in one's retirement.  People are clambering to buy houses while interest rates are low.

In another culture, people borrow from one another.  Having only one ladder in the village is enough, as not everybody will need to use that ladder at the same time.  They are happy to share.  Here, people value self-sufficiency more.  Many own their own ladders even if they hardly ever use them.

It would be seen as irresponsible to sell and give away everything in this culture where savings and self-sufficiency is such a strong value in the society.

However, Jesus turns it around.  He says (Matthew 6:25-30)

“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.  But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!

God supplies all our needs. He cares for us.  Without His supply, we do not even have the energy to find a job.  Or do the job.  All our strength and money are blessings from Him.  And He is able to meet our needs.  Why do we worry?  As we trust God to supply, there is not the need to cling to wealth and self-sufficiency in the way our culture dictates.

But to hold the tension between these two values is not easy.

Mission organisations feel the need to make sure that members are cared for.  Due diligence to make sure that members can pay of their debts.  That they spend within their means.  That they have saved up something through superannuation for their retirement.

How do you think Christians living in this culture ought to live between the extremes of this tension?  How do they "give away everything" to follow the Lord as well as to be responsible under the value system of the society?  By tithing?  But tithing is only 10% and is not "everything"?

How do we put God first, and let God rule our lives if we hold back?

What do you think?  What do you believe?

Australian students

Are Australian students serious about their studies?

Apparently not.

Maria Grippo wrote that as compared with their Filipino counterparts, Australian students are quite spoiled.  The parents of Filipino students work hard to finance their children through Uni.  Uni fees are expensive.  It comes at such a high cost, that Filipino students work hard so not to disappoint the expectations of their paying parents.

Australian students, in contrast, differ their Uni fees to HECS.  They also get study allowances that adequately cover their living costs.  So these students live it up, party, go on holidays, etc, studying when they feel like it.  They can drop out or differ courses without penalties that are as high as what Filipino students face.  Some students drop out of their courses, end up with low paying courses, and do not repay their HECS debts.

On the radio today, it was reported that students cheat through plagiarism, through buying online services from people who would write their essays and do their assignments.  Many of those online service providers also plagiarise, so the students are easy to spot.  And tutors know the students' abilities, so a student poor in English submitting grammatically correct, well written report is easy to spot.  Why would a student cheat unless he were not serious about learning?

Are all Australian students cheats?  Are all of them not interested in learning, but simply having something to pass their time and to use the education and social welfare system to one's advantage?  Is the Australian education system really lacking in quality and failing to produce graduates who are worth their salt?

Are Australian students really that bad compared to those in other countries?  Or do other countries face similar problems in their education systems?  Or maybe even greater ones?

Australia still attracts students from overseas to study at her Universities.  Perhaps the problem is not in the system, but in the attitudes of some students?  I know some students and some graduates who seems to have their hearts in the right place.

What do you think?

How can Australia clean up its act?

Muslim:Christian ratio

Christians have been a world majority for as long as I can remember.  Would it be significant if they were no longer the majority?  What do you think?

Of course, the church started off small.  Just a band of followers who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead.  Everybody else imagined the claim to be ridiculous.  Christians were by far the minority then.  Romans would throw them to the lions, trying to kill off these fanatics, but their numbers grew in spite the persecution.

Those who saw Jesus alive after His resurrection could not deny the truth.  And seeing that He has returned from the dead gave the early Christians hope and security in the hereafter.  They were not afraid to love their persecutors.  So, in spite being put to death, their numbers grew.  Others overseas, who saw and heard about what was happening wanted to believe also.  So people around the world joined this little band of followers.  Church became institutionalised and regarded as a major world religion.

Islam came along a little later.  Their growth was mostly by the sword, even though there were also those who were persuaded by their theology.  Many Muslims are Muslims because of culture too.

Rappler.com reckons that by 2050, the number of Muslims would be greater than the number of Christians.  Through birthrate,deathrate, conversions, defections and many people who have just lost interest, the percentage of Christians is in decline.  However, the number of Muslims is increasing.

Will this change affect you?  Why, or why not?  Is it a matter of "islamophobia"?

Would you believe this prediction?  There are other sources that say that the church is actually growing, and not declining.

Would a Muslim-majority world be a more harmonious world?  Or would it be filled with more violence and strife?  Would there be more love in the world?

What do you think?

Multiculturalism or Integration?

Multiculturalism is when there are many cultures within a society.  Many societies are becoming multicultural, as immigrants and refugees bring their cultures to their new home.  They hold onto elements of their culture while within a society that is new to them.

Integration is when people give up their respective cultures when they join a new society.  They adopt the culture of the new society to the extent of giving up their previous way of life.

Which is better for the society?

Kel Richards argued for integration on 2CH tonight.  He thinks that multiculturalism creates ghettos.  Instead of getting on with others, people cling on to their own.  This adds suspicion between culture groups, and sometimes can also lead to gang wars.  He thinks that people who come to Australia should adopt Australian culture instead of bringing their culture with them.  Just like the first Italian settlers did.

Would you agree?
 I imagine that integration is not easy.  If one has been brought up in a certain way, one cannot easily give up all of that as one moves to another society.  One naturally brings along one's education and skills and habits - good and bad - with one.  I think multiculturalism is good in that it allows for this kind of diversity within society.

I also imagine that economists prefer multiculturalism.  It promotes trade and international relationships.  As people wish to taste the food of others and buy the goods from other countries, wealth increases with multiculturalism.  But while Australia seeks these economic benefits, I think that it does so at the cost to other good values quite often.

What do you think?

Is multiculturalism the way to go?  Or should we go back to the values of integration?

In Indonesia, assimilation was the drive many years ago.  People could no longer call themselves "Chinese" or "Dutch" or whatever, as they took on Indonesian names and lived the Indonesian way.  There was a loss in the sense that the Chinese became less Chinese as they took on their Indonesian identity.

Malaysians chose differently, allowing their different races to maintain their racial identities.  This led to racial riots and the form of racism that exists in that country, even up to today.

Might there be room for assimilation and race and multiculturalism to coexist?  Maybe the world would be more harmonious if there were some elements of accepting each other (instead of forming ghettos) as well as some allowances for people's differences?

What do you think?

Choices

Psychologist Barry Schwartz reckons that "choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied. "

What do you think?  Would you agree with him?

I think that many people, coming from environments with lesser choice, would, as they experience our supermarkets.  Instead of just buying milk, one gets to choose between soy, rice and dairy milk.  Then there is skim, low fat and full cream to choose from.  Then, which brand?  Milk from which country of origin, or which state?

And similarly with other goods and services.  It is so hard to compare the offerings of two mobile phone providers, as their plans are described so differently that it is not easy to see which one suits the consumer better.

Then, comparing ourselves with other people and trying to "keep up with the Joneses" - how much to keep up or how much not to.  What is right for us?

And then, there is also the government telling us what to do.  That we need to have two incomes, be productive economically, as though the economy is the most important aspect of society.  Or to deviate from that.

Choices of which clothes are suitable to wear, which religion to follow, etc.

It is a lifestyle issue.  I think that how satisfied we are depends on how we feel about the choices, and not the choices itself.

Some people willingly live more simply, and feel happy about it.

Last Sunday, I remembered Jesus and His choices.  He could have chosen other apostles, or not have Judas Iscariot among his closest ones.  He could have made it easy for himself by not going to the cross.  But He didn't.  He made his choice based on what He knew would best bring glory to God and what would save the people He loves.

Are choices easy for us?  Are we willing to make sacrificial choices?

What would you choose?  Why?

Cheating at exams

In Bihar, 300 people were recently arrested for cheating in exams.  Many of them are parents of the students sitting the exams.

The Hindustan Times has a picture of people scaling up a 4-storey wall to throw paper-airplanes carrying answers to exam papers.  However, the chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board said that cheating has not happened within the exam halls.  He claims that it happens from the outside.  Fines have been imposed, students have been failed or expelled and exams have been cancelled as a result of the publicity around such cheating experiences.

People live in a society where passing exams is seen to be the make-or-break point to their need to live in poverty.  After all, these are the leaving school exams, and consequently, the last chance the students have to show that they have gained some value out of their schooling.

Cheating has apparently become more rampant since the state government offered cash rewards to lower-caste students who were able to answer about half the questions on their tests.  Attempts to chase away family members lurking outside test centres failed, as mobs threw stones at the law-enforcement agents.

What do you think of such a culture?  Has something gone wrong?  Or is this fine?  How can it be made right if it has gone wrong?

The Education Board has tried to counsel parents and students against cheating, while many parents blame the government and the teachers for being indifferent and uncaring.

Can such a culture change for the better?  How?

Evangelism

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the following about evangelism:

• It isn't something you can opt out of: you just do it, even if you are not a professional.
• Do it, not out of duty, but because you love people.  Love as Jesus loves.
• It isn't about results.  Don't try to count the number of conversions or how instantaneously it happens.
• Remember that it is good news.  It is positive, happy news.
• Trust the Holy Spirit to work.
• Pray.
• Be prepared, that your conversations may only bear fruit after you leave the scene.  Give people time to absorb what has been said.
• Don't complicate things.  Only answer what has been asked.  Keep the message simple to understand.
• Always be ready to give an answer.
• Realise the importance of evangelism.

I think Welby made good points.  When we make evangelism out to be an awkward, professional task, we become awkward and unnatural as we try to present the facts to our friends.   When we do it without love as our motivation, our message does not connect as people question our motives.  We do not want to force people to convert, but to give them the opportunity to accept the grace of our Lord.

Do you think so?  Do you find evangelism awkward to do?  Awkward to be on the receiving end of?  Should evangelism be done at the edge of a sword?

Is evangelism a Christian thing, or does it belong to other people too?

Is Jesus real?

What do you reckon?

Michael Paulkovich reckons He isn't.  His study led him to the conclusion that

“When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not – and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions – I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character.

However, J Warner Wallace reckons that "the Christian faith is an evidential faith".  He said that the Scriptures call us to use our minds, examine the evidences, examine what we believe, and be convinced with the truth.

Indeed, Paul wrote that

if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead.

Have you studied the evidences?  What do you believe about the Bible?  What do you believe about Jesus?  Why?

Personality test

What talents do you have?  In music?  Sports?  Intelligence?  Are you a people person?  Artistic?  Analytical?

There are personality tests that you can do to find out about yourself.  And other people, perhaps, evaluate you similarly, even without tests, in order to categorise in their minds what kind of person you are.

But are you stuck in whatever it is that you are categorised as?

I think you can change - to a degree - if you choose.  And as you age, you also change, even if you don't choose to.

People can change.

Does God have a say in how you change also?

We read of hardened criminals becoming the most gracious of people when they come to know Jesus.  We read of how people change, as they get married or have children.  Or if they lose a limb or face some tragedy.

Are you willing to change?  Or do you think you are stuck in your personality?

Not of this world

What did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 12:2

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Or when Jesus said in John 17:16

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

I find that as we live in this world, conforming to the patterns of our society and culture is quite necessary.  Be too radically different, and people would think that you are mad, not trustworthy, somebody to shun away from rather than to befriend.  Christians need to conform to the degree that they show God's values in a way that the world would be attracted to God.  They need to be seen as righteous and honourable ... at least, to the extent that they can draw people to Christ.

However, conform too much and the world would not see any difference in us compared to themselves.  We do not show God's glory if we did this.  Instead, we shame our Lord.

Sometimes, it is hard to draw the line.

Especially when we need public favour.  Or to save our own lives.

NSW Premier, Mike Baird was once asked how he came up with the right words to comfort the public after the Sydney Siege.  Mike could have answered to say that God helped him, that God gave him the inspiration, or something to that effect.  He didn't, though.  He said that he worked on it and came up with the right thing to say.  We expect that this is to fit into a culture where one is expected  to be wise and strong as a leader.  Or where mentioning "God" in public draws too much criticism from the public.  But if he had mentioned Gd, God would have gotten more glory.

Would Christians today deny Christ if society would put them to death if they didn't?  Would Christians today be willing to be thrown to the lions, as they were in the first century?  Or, be beheaded by ISIS, in the modern context?

How would you stand out today, if you are a Christian?  Or do you think that Christians are just a bunch of mad, wimpy people who do not know that God isn't real?  How can Christians live lives that say otherwise?

What do you think?

Authenticating phone calls

When bankers phone you, they need to know who you are.  You must be a signatory to an account belonging to the bank, or the bank must not disclose the details of the account to you.  For this reason, the bank would ask you a number of questions to verify that you are who they assume you are.

Even when they have initiated the call, and not you.

The same principle applies to accounts for utilities as phone, internet, gas or electricity.

But how do you know that the calling party is actually who you think they are?  If it is really an employee or an agent of the bank (or utility company), and not an imposter?

Of course, it is possible for unscrupulous employees or agents to steal your private data as well.  But this is less likely to be the issue, as it is more tracable.  The bigger concern is for an outsider, through social engineering, con you into disclosing details that should remain private between you and your service provider.

You should authenticate the person on the other end of the line - especially if you do not know who they are.  They should be able to send you an email, a net-banking message, an SMS, or disclose a private piece of information to validate that they are who they claim to be.

Many of us, as customers, are used to being verified, but are not used to doing the verifying task ourselves.  We don't often think of doing so.

Do you think so?  How do you think the systems can work for two-way authentication?  How can we protect ourselves from being manipulated and cheated by the bigger organisations and the criminal minds?

Student thinking

Students are supposed to learn, right?  And learning results in passing exams, right?  That means that a good student, knowing enough to pass exams, has a good level of intelligence, right?

Maybe not.  The mentality of passing exams hampers one's ability to think, apparently, if the Secret Teacher's article is to be believed.

Secret Teacher found that students had difficulty thinking things out for themselves.  Thinking is a strenuous exercise.  They need guidance to think - how big to draw a diagram, what words to use in a sentence, what conclusion should they arrive at, what are the correct answers, how many examples to give, etc ... what will show up in the exams - as they see their goal is to accomplish what is required for the grading tasks, in order to receive good grades.

The objective of actually learning something is not present in their thoughts.  Thoughts are distractions.  Showing the marker what he wants to see in order to be deemed worthy of good grades is the actual goal.  Figuring it out for one's self isn't.

Do you see this kind of mindset in students today?  Or is Secret Teacher's observation not universal?

I think that to a degree, Higher Education does not want students to think.  They want students to gather thoughts from other "experts" as they need to read up many references and quote them in essays.  Research is mostly repeating laboratory exercises and quoting from other people's work.  The only time when students get to do any real thinking is when they are working towards their Ph D, but even then, much of the work is in consultation with other "experts" in the field, as they gather information through readings and discussions.

To have a thought to abstract is probably "wrong".  Thinking is good, but it needs to be verified.

What do you think?  How should one think?  According to the norms that society and the education system tells us to?  Or may one think more independantly?

Who is to guide, if the instructors are wrong?

Can one really discern right from wrong?  How?  Is education the answer?

Change your first language

"What was your first language?" was a question in a recent questionaire that I read.

It led me to think: does one change one's first language?  Is that possible?

I subsequently posted my question on Facebook.

What my friends answered was a revelation to me.  Here is a summary of what they said:

• "First language" implies "native tongue" and fluency in that language.
• Her husband is fluent in four languages.  His first language is changable, depending on who he is talking to.
• She has two first languages, and has a hard time deciding which is really her "first".
• Another friend claims English as his first language.  He has since learned two other languages, and is quite fluent in all three.  He claims that his heart language is not his first language.
• Yet another friend picks up languages quite quickly.  She said she learned Indonesian because she thought she would live there, and Danish because her husband prefers to speak to her in that language.

Is this your experience with languages?  What does "first language" mean to you?  Do you have experiences to add to my list?

Please share.  Thank you.

Ethnicity

Shakira was disappointed to find that Filipinos in New York would not connect with her based on their race.

She wished to speak her language, enjoy the food from her ethnic background, talk about things from "back home" with people that she thought were from her country of origin.  However, the people she wrote about did not wish to connect with her that way.  They preferred to identify themselves as Chinese instead.  Or terminate the conversation and walk away as quickly as they can.

Why is this so?

Have these people forgotten their roots?  Are they ashamed about where they have come from?  Are they like the proverbial "kacang lupakan kulit"?

Or is Shakira racist in wanting to connect with people of the same ethnic background as herself?  Is it wrong to wish for such connections?

Many Filipinos that I meet are like Shakira.  They long to connect with other Filipinos, especially while they are not in the Philippines.  Even if they have lost their Filipino citizenship, they would identify themselves as Filipino, cheer for Manny Pacquiao, speak in Tagalog, and eat food that originated from that country.  However, not all Filipinos are like this.

Which behaviour is better?  Holding on to one's origins in preference to mixing with others while abroad?  Or mixing with others in preference to having friends from one's ethnic origins?  Does it matter?

Does it change for people whose ancestors migrated several generations ago, as compared with first generation migrants?  Or visitors and temporary visa holders?

What is your experience in this matter?

Don't mock the prophet

The consensus of the recent Charlie Hebdo incident seems to be clear.  Don't insult the Muslim's prophet.  It enrages the Muslims.  The more militant of them can respond violently.

Muslims around the world - militant or otherwise - seem to agree.  The Prophet Mohammad's is sacred.  It needs to be defended.  http://www.kinitv.com/video/14852O8, http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/india-muslim-cleric-says-what-charlie-hebdo-jihadis-did-was-completely-legitimate-as-per-sharia-laws, http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2015/01/13/how-to-end-insults-to-islam/ and many other webpages seem to carry this message.

Some other webpages seem to generalise terror, and say that it is not just Muslim militants who do it.  http://www.salon.com/2015/01/17/why_religion_unleashes_humanitys_most_violent_impulses_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow and http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html?via=desktop&source=facebook are among these.

Would you agree with what these webpages say?  What is your opinion on this matter?

What do you think the Christian response would be?  Why is it that many ridicule the name of Jesus without as many Christians taking such a violent stand?  Is it because Christians are cowards?  Too peace-loving to retaliate?  Too confused, or too weak in their beliefs to want to do anything?

http://thecripplegate.com/the-ineptitude-of-moral-equivalence/ reckons that it is because Christianity started off more peacefully.  People were attracted to Christ because Christians endured the ridicule and shame.  They exercised more self control.

God's name is holy and people should regard it as holy.  Yet God gave up that position when He took on human form in order to restore us to Himself.  Philippians 2:5-8 says:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 

 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness. 

 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Given what God has done, Christians seem to prefer to love rather than to retaliate.  Although not all Christians are like this - some do war in the name of their faith.

Do you think Christians are like this?  How do Christians generally behave?  Do they attract people to Jesus or turn people away from Him?  How should Christians behave?

In the same manner, how do you think Muslims and people of other faiths should live out, act out, and defend their beliefs when they are called to?

Are vocations equal?

Does it matter what job you get?  How long you stay in the job?  Stay within the same career?

Many ask these questions, as they enter the workforce for the first time, or as they leave school and choose their Uni courses.

From one perspective, it doesn't really matter.  So long that you are contributing society.  So long that you feel happy and satisfied.  So long as you have enough to pay your bills.

From another perspective, it does matter.  Some dread going to work, and this is not a happy feeling.

Amy Sherman says it does matter.  Some jobs are immoral.  Others may not be aligned with your personal goals in life, and consequently feel like a waste of your life, even though you might be earning your living.

Amy reckons that ideally, you find a job that fit the gifts you have, where the goals fit where you think God is taking you.

Do you think so?  Is it hard to find such a job?  Do such things come out in job interviews?  Or is the job market so desperate that one needs to take the opportunities that come up even if they do not exactly align?

Amy also recommends that we are aware of our seasons in life.  Some jobs that may be okay when we are younger may not be when we are older.

Do you think this is good advice?  How satisfied are you with your job?

Introverts

The Cambridge Dictionary defines an "introvert" to be "someone who is shy, quiet, and unable to make friends easily".  Wikipedia, though, reckons that this is a common mistake.  It said that "mistaking introversion for shyness is a common error. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do.".

Carl Jung describes introversion and extroversion as a spectrum.  Different people have different levels of introversion and extroversion, and cannot exactly be boxed as one or the other.  Those somewhere in the middle of the spectrum are called "ambiverts".

The Huffington Post lists the following characteristics of introverts:

• They withdraw in crowds,
• They prefer deeper conversations to small talk,
• They do well on stage, but not the light conversations after,
• They are easily distracted, but do not feel bored,
• They are drawn to creative, detail-oriented and solitary careers,
• When surrounded by people, they prefer to be closer to the exits,
• They think before they speak,
• They don't take on the mood of the environment like extroverts,
• They don't like talking on the phone,
• They shut down when it is time to be alone.

At a recent conference that I attended, introverts were defined as people who energise in solitude, while extroverts are gain their energy when in a crowd.  Somebody said that she has shifted closer to be an ambivert compared to her younger years.  Another person said that she felt awkward while living in a foreign land, where she needs to converse in a foreign language frequently, but she is able to make friends and feel comfortable in that environment even so.  Yet another cautioned against regarding introversion as a handicap - they are normal people who just draw their energy differently.  They just need to have some "alone" time to recharge after interacting with other people.  Introverts long for company and friendships just like everybody else.

Are you an introvert?  What helps you survive the social environment if you are?  How do you think introverts can be assisted socially?

Public vs personal economics

Apparently, passengers pay an average of $2.70 for each Sydney train journey.  Taxpayers subsidise these journeys by $10.60, as the average fare does not fully cover the cost.

There are many reasons behind this.  Concession fares for children, the unemployed and the elderly is one reason.  Also, if the commuters had to pay the full cost, then people would not be attracted to use the rail system.  This would result in a higher volume of road traffic - and this would cost the tax payers about $6.80 more/journey.

So it depends on how we look at the issue.  One, interpreting it at an individual level, may say that the train fares need to increase in price in order to recoup its losses.  The government and the tax payers shouldn't need to bear the cost.  The rail network should turn a profit in themselves, and not be a liability to the public.  There should be less concession in the fares in order to make this possible.

On the other hand, when one looks at the issue from a community perspective, one can say that given the benefits of reducing traffic from the roads, from less carbon emission pollution, the reduction in inflation, etc, the economics of running the rail system at this reduced rate is the right tact.

Are there other issues in life that fit this model?

Eg. education - which are a burden to the public purse, but necessary for the next generation?  Tithing and taxes - which have a negative impact on an individual's budget, but are necessary for the church or state to have resources to use?  Driving in such a way to suit self instead of obeying the rules to help every other road user as well as self?  Litter in the streets?  Social welfare?

What if people seek out for their personal good instead of thinking big-picture for the good of the community?

Are banks, governments and individuals too self-centred instead of community-centred in their mindset these days?

What do you think?  How can we have a better world?  Does God have a part in solving this?