I once read with much admiration, an article in Straits Times by this Muslim-Malay politician who talked about toleration in a secular society.
I can't remember his exact words but it went something like - he would have to talk and work with and treat civily his fellow non-Muslim worker - though he knew this fellow was going to hell.
First of all I must say it took a lot of guts to write that. And even more guts to publish it.
And this absolutely slaps those relativists in the face, those who think people who hold on to absolute, exclusivist truth claims are bigots, close-minded, intolerant, arragont and all that.
I mean, that's what tolerance is in the first place right? Putting up with something in spite of not agreeing with it. If one can agree to all sorts of conflicting, mutually exclusive truth claims then he's not being tolerant - apart from a miserable lack of convictions in life - he's just spineless and holds on to nothing and expects other people to do the same.
Therefore see, how the person who disagrees with a particular truth-claim or moral belief and yet respects the other person's right to hold his view is the one who is REALLY tolerant.
I'm going to verbal smack the next atheist who goes around lamblasting us monotheistic bigots about how 'selfish' and 'unobjective' we are and how wonderfully enlightening their 'viewpoint from nowhere' and their 'value-unladen' objectivity is...
BRING IT ON!
Proclaiming Jesus in a confused, attention-span defict world.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
God hear me
Just when I thought things were going to settle down as I wait for the largest bureucracy -ARMY - to finalise their employment details (during which I had to turn down interviews with New NKF, NEA, HDB, SPF as well as decline 2 other job offers), God opens yet another door.
I haf a keen interest in theology and the studying and understanding of God and how our faith ought to relate to our life and our world around us, and how we ought to see, understand and try to reconcile things. And there's an opening for postgrad studies in church as part of the pastoral team, with the aim of eventually becoming assistant pastor after several years of sponsored studies, of which my pastor approached me to consider.
What shall I do?
Being part of the pastoral team is something that I'd never considered before...
I haf a keen interest in theology and the studying and understanding of God and how our faith ought to relate to our life and our world around us, and how we ought to see, understand and try to reconcile things. And there's an opening for postgrad studies in church as part of the pastoral team, with the aim of eventually becoming assistant pastor after several years of sponsored studies, of which my pastor approached me to consider.
What shall I do?
Being part of the pastoral team is something that I'd never considered before...
Monday, October 08, 2007
monday
It's been a quiet monday morning. I woke at the incredible timing of 10.30am. Decided to take a walk to the MayBank Geylang Serai to pay the outstanding credit card bill from my telco. Walked the quiet of the bazaar and pasar malams as they're just starting to open. Brought my swimming stuff in my bag with the intent of going to the pool near Paya Lebar MRT after lunch.
Decided to go to the Singapore Post Centre Subway to redeem my free 6-incher sandwich. Chose a Cheesesteak because it's something I normally wouldn't buy if I had to pay full price. Wolfed it down rather quickly and started doing the remnants of my BSF homework. After a while it starting raining, and the gradually began to fill up.
As I finished the worksheet the place was beginning to get really noisy ala Raffles Place at lunch time so I left and walked around a bit amongst the office people looking for a cash-deposit machine. Couldn't find any. In the end I settled down to read the latest edition of "Wheels" magazine at Popular bookstore. Many nice-looking ads with some worth-while articles too.
A feature on the latest C-Class... ha... something I'd admire but never buy even if I had the money. Then a short write-up on the VW Golf GT "1.4TSI"... at 104k it's in luxury car zone. But its one mean pocket rocket and gentle on the tax but not on the torque and acceleration. Nice.
Stood there for 45min to finish browsing... and by the time I was done the rain had stopped so walked back home. Fixed lunch appointment tomorrow. Got a call from somebody. Finished it real quick. Got a canned drink. Went home and had some ice cream.
I feel like just sleeping and sleeping. Goodnight.
Decided to go to the Singapore Post Centre Subway to redeem my free 6-incher sandwich. Chose a Cheesesteak because it's something I normally wouldn't buy if I had to pay full price. Wolfed it down rather quickly and started doing the remnants of my BSF homework. After a while it starting raining, and the gradually began to fill up.
As I finished the worksheet the place was beginning to get really noisy ala Raffles Place at lunch time so I left and walked around a bit amongst the office people looking for a cash-deposit machine. Couldn't find any. In the end I settled down to read the latest edition of "Wheels" magazine at Popular bookstore. Many nice-looking ads with some worth-while articles too.
A feature on the latest C-Class... ha... something I'd admire but never buy even if I had the money. Then a short write-up on the VW Golf GT "1.4TSI"... at 104k it's in luxury car zone. But its one mean pocket rocket and gentle on the tax but not on the torque and acceleration. Nice.
Stood there for 45min to finish browsing... and by the time I was done the rain had stopped so walked back home. Fixed lunch appointment tomorrow. Got a call from somebody. Finished it real quick. Got a canned drink. Went home and had some ice cream.
I feel like just sleeping and sleeping. Goodnight.
Friday, October 05, 2007
hahah
Woah! This is sooo cooooll
Stomp is an interesting place, but it seems to be mostly for petty complaints :) but it also shows how ugly we sometimes get... :)
Thursday, October 04, 2007
On men and women
Animal brutality.
That's the first reaction I had to the first physical encounter between Mrs Mak (pronounced "mai" as in "mai-dang-nao" (MacDonald in mandarin)) and Mr Yee in the course of their illicit affair.
Without going into details that would put this blog into the porn circle, I'd say that Lust, Caution (2007) got me thinking once again about the relationship between man and woman by throwing some hard, honest realities back in my face.
Perhaps it was merely a matter of style or preference that while she wanted to build up with more foreplay, he just rushed in and took her. Or perhaps a reflection of his power (in both the physical and political sense). Maybe it was the rekindling of that banter they had 3 years before which he had turned down due to caution, that he so wanted to consumate.
But its the... 'uncivility' of the whole act which unsettles me. Almost like some excretory function. Unhappy me. You almost feel bad to have to subject your other half to such, impalement, for want of a better word. I'm sure there's a better way to do it.
So much for the tryst. But Mrs Mak goes in for the kill. To establish that emotional 'oneness' between a man and a woman where they transcend beyond the "your money is yours, my money is mine" kind of mentality. At the meeting in the Japanese district she announces her intent to move into his life by challenging, in that all so powerful demure way that only a lady can, to regard her as more than a whore. Which he probably treated her as, up till now.
And she sings for him a beautiful song, appealing to his sense and need for a woman in his life. And he finally succumbs. A hard, cautious man, broken.
He reiterates that again some part later in the movie as he recounts "... my superiors say my mind is not in my work... I am somewhere else.... and I am.... all my thoughts... are with you..."
A darker note surfaces as he recounts how he tortures a suspected spy "... as I tortured him... I imagined him... on top of you..." Probably a reflection of possessiveness.
But what of the director's claims of giving more insight into what sex is to women?
Only a hint of it in her angry words to the spy-master when asked to prolong her whoring to him so that they could get more information. As she describes.... the experience.... in rather cruel words and punctuates it with how, after climaxing they are supposed to turn up and blow his brains off while he's still on top of her. Maybe her side would have come out more vividly in the uncensored version.
But as it stands, she just keeps being portrayed as something to be used.
The question at the end when the plot is uncovered and they fail to assassinate Yee is, did Mrs Mak fall for him, as he did for her? Behind that innocently seductive smile, that gentle, helpless demeanour, and quiet, consistent face, I can't tell.
Neither do the way things unfold at the end give a conclusive answer as well. We know quite certainly Yee did. Men are simple, readable creatures mostly.
But as for her, she remained the Mona Lisa with regards to him all the way. Who could tell what the woman was feeling behind that pretty face?
The movie is a classic spy plot, quite generic in its execution and unfolding techniques, but its explorations into the relationship between a man and a woman are brave.
Alas, still, the mystery that is woman.
That's the first reaction I had to the first physical encounter between Mrs Mak (pronounced "mai" as in "mai-dang-nao" (MacDonald in mandarin)) and Mr Yee in the course of their illicit affair.
Without going into details that would put this blog into the porn circle, I'd say that Lust, Caution (2007) got me thinking once again about the relationship between man and woman by throwing some hard, honest realities back in my face.
Perhaps it was merely a matter of style or preference that while she wanted to build up with more foreplay, he just rushed in and took her. Or perhaps a reflection of his power (in both the physical and political sense). Maybe it was the rekindling of that banter they had 3 years before which he had turned down due to caution, that he so wanted to consumate.
But its the... 'uncivility' of the whole act which unsettles me. Almost like some excretory function. Unhappy me. You almost feel bad to have to subject your other half to such, impalement, for want of a better word. I'm sure there's a better way to do it.
So much for the tryst. But Mrs Mak goes in for the kill. To establish that emotional 'oneness' between a man and a woman where they transcend beyond the "your money is yours, my money is mine" kind of mentality. At the meeting in the Japanese district she announces her intent to move into his life by challenging, in that all so powerful demure way that only a lady can, to regard her as more than a whore. Which he probably treated her as, up till now.
And she sings for him a beautiful song, appealing to his sense and need for a woman in his life. And he finally succumbs. A hard, cautious man, broken.
He reiterates that again some part later in the movie as he recounts "... my superiors say my mind is not in my work... I am somewhere else.... and I am.... all my thoughts... are with you..."
A darker note surfaces as he recounts how he tortures a suspected spy "... as I tortured him... I imagined him... on top of you..." Probably a reflection of possessiveness.
But what of the director's claims of giving more insight into what sex is to women?
Only a hint of it in her angry words to the spy-master when asked to prolong her whoring to him so that they could get more information. As she describes.... the experience.... in rather cruel words and punctuates it with how, after climaxing they are supposed to turn up and blow his brains off while he's still on top of her. Maybe her side would have come out more vividly in the uncensored version.
But as it stands, she just keeps being portrayed as something to be used.
The question at the end when the plot is uncovered and they fail to assassinate Yee is, did Mrs Mak fall for him, as he did for her? Behind that innocently seductive smile, that gentle, helpless demeanour, and quiet, consistent face, I can't tell.
Neither do the way things unfold at the end give a conclusive answer as well. We know quite certainly Yee did. Men are simple, readable creatures mostly.
But as for her, she remained the Mona Lisa with regards to him all the way. Who could tell what the woman was feeling behind that pretty face?
The movie is a classic spy plot, quite generic in its execution and unfolding techniques, but its explorations into the relationship between a man and a woman are brave.
Alas, still, the mystery that is woman.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
my ride
Engine mileage for all to see. Max power @ 5500rpm. Max torque @ 4500rpm. In daily traffic there's usually not a need to go beyond 2500rpm even with the aircon on. Haven't tested max speed yet because I want to change the timing belts before I attempt that :P
Yes and it travels 300km on half a tank of petrol... full tank being 60litres but then, we all know petrol gauges are rarely linear in their sweep :)
Monday, October 01, 2007
love the sinner, hateth the sin?
This write-up is a response to the article Homosexual friends: Let's fight the hypocrisy on YOUTHink, The Straits Times 1st Oct 2007.
I read with much interest your claims of hypocrisy in trying to apply the truism of ‘love the sinner, hate the sin” to the issue of homosexuality.
As someone who has had a close personal college friend of many years gradually ‘come out of the closet’ with regards to his homosexuality right under my nose, I too have experienced the tension between being this person’s continued close friend and remaining faithful to the values of my belief.
Firstly, I note in your writing about how you felt that “…gay people were just like everyone else, and fully capable of holding stable, loving relationships…”
I agree with you completely on that statement. If I can claim to love the sinner, that would first and foremost mean that I regard him as a ‘normal’ person like myself, and I will not presume that being homosexual predisposes one to ‘abnormal’ or abusive relationships.
However, it seems that what you have been taught about why homosexuality is to be considered an abomination rests merely on these supposed consequences of being gay. The verdict is still out with regards to empirical research as to whether gay relationships are more or less fulfilling and lasting, whether children raised in gay families are better or worse, and so on, and after a while we run into social science problems of how we can measure happiness or fulfillment or good upbringing.
But for want of such objective and scientific conclusions as to whether the phenomena of homosexuality is detrimental to society, there are people like myself who hold on to the notion of homosexuality being an ‘abomination’ simply because it is explicitly so defined by my faith, and that being generally unshakable except by the most fringe interpretations currently existing.
Yes, it is true that many conservative groups may try to emphasize on some empirical research data or perpetuate some presumptions about the effects of homosexuality as a plausible reason for condemning homosexuality. But for clearly grounded practitioners of the faith, the teaching stays because it is absolute, and not dependent on its being proven ‘undesirable’ by man.
Secondly, I would like to address your charges of hypocrisy with regards to ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’. Rather than go into the history or the specific Christian context of the teaching, I would simply state that it is still logically possible to have a separation between the ‘sinner’ and ‘sin’.
‘Sinner’ basically refers to every human person, for according to Christian teaching every human in his natural state tends toward the committing of sin. Thus what this means is that we are to show charitable love to all human beings and wish or do no harm to the person, and watch out for them as ourselves. To love in that sense is not necessarily to adhere or acquiesce to their values and beliefs.
I’d like to also add that ‘not accepting them the way they are’ does not mean discriminating against them or persecuting them, which would clearly not be out of charitable love. They are still members of our secular society, and ought to be treated as so.
Separation between the offender and the offence is being done all the time. In school, for example, students get punished for all sorts of offences and in many ways, but it is not right for the teacher to demean or insult the person. Instead they are to direct the disapproval towards the offence.
What you have done in your article is that because you are either unable to separate the agent and the act itself clearly, or that you understand love to mean acceptance of the other’s values, you respond by redefining homosexuality as no longer being a ‘sin’ to you.
My take on this? As long as we are able to separate the person from the action, there will be no hypocrisy involved, and we can continue to be faithful adherers to our value system and yet responsible members of our secular society.
I read with much interest your claims of hypocrisy in trying to apply the truism of ‘love the sinner, hate the sin” to the issue of homosexuality.
As someone who has had a close personal college friend of many years gradually ‘come out of the closet’ with regards to his homosexuality right under my nose, I too have experienced the tension between being this person’s continued close friend and remaining faithful to the values of my belief.
Firstly, I note in your writing about how you felt that “…gay people were just like everyone else, and fully capable of holding stable, loving relationships…”
I agree with you completely on that statement. If I can claim to love the sinner, that would first and foremost mean that I regard him as a ‘normal’ person like myself, and I will not presume that being homosexual predisposes one to ‘abnormal’ or abusive relationships.
However, it seems that what you have been taught about why homosexuality is to be considered an abomination rests merely on these supposed consequences of being gay. The verdict is still out with regards to empirical research as to whether gay relationships are more or less fulfilling and lasting, whether children raised in gay families are better or worse, and so on, and after a while we run into social science problems of how we can measure happiness or fulfillment or good upbringing.
But for want of such objective and scientific conclusions as to whether the phenomena of homosexuality is detrimental to society, there are people like myself who hold on to the notion of homosexuality being an ‘abomination’ simply because it is explicitly so defined by my faith, and that being generally unshakable except by the most fringe interpretations currently existing.
Yes, it is true that many conservative groups may try to emphasize on some empirical research data or perpetuate some presumptions about the effects of homosexuality as a plausible reason for condemning homosexuality. But for clearly grounded practitioners of the faith, the teaching stays because it is absolute, and not dependent on its being proven ‘undesirable’ by man.
Secondly, I would like to address your charges of hypocrisy with regards to ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’. Rather than go into the history or the specific Christian context of the teaching, I would simply state that it is still logically possible to have a separation between the ‘sinner’ and ‘sin’.
‘Sinner’ basically refers to every human person, for according to Christian teaching every human in his natural state tends toward the committing of sin. Thus what this means is that we are to show charitable love to all human beings and wish or do no harm to the person, and watch out for them as ourselves. To love in that sense is not necessarily to adhere or acquiesce to their values and beliefs.
I’d like to also add that ‘not accepting them the way they are’ does not mean discriminating against them or persecuting them, which would clearly not be out of charitable love. They are still members of our secular society, and ought to be treated as so.
Separation between the offender and the offence is being done all the time. In school, for example, students get punished for all sorts of offences and in many ways, but it is not right for the teacher to demean or insult the person. Instead they are to direct the disapproval towards the offence.
What you have done in your article is that because you are either unable to separate the agent and the act itself clearly, or that you understand love to mean acceptance of the other’s values, you respond by redefining homosexuality as no longer being a ‘sin’ to you.
My take on this? As long as we are able to separate the person from the action, there will be no hypocrisy involved, and we can continue to be faithful adherers to our value system and yet responsible members of our secular society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)