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?