Science vs Faith

Someone sends me this. I really like the illustration of Science vs Faith. It clearly points out the serious problem of living your life based on "faith".

Teaching religion in a science class?

Background:

In Hong Kong, the new senior secondary school biology and combined science curriculum effective from September 2009 contain a statement in the part of evolution that may encourage unscientific theories to be propagated in science classes.

The related passage reads: "In addition to Darwin's theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge."

News media reported that at least 31 secondary schools in Hong Kong have already admitted to teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution during science lessons.

The Education Bureau first turned their back to the complaining scientists from the University of Hong Kong, but later stated in a TV program that creationism is not “considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory”.

In the same TV program a secondary school principal lashed out at the scientists for being narrow-minded by expelling religious ideas. Another secondary school principal said on the newspaper that "Our religious belief does not approve of evolution" .

In early May 2009, a group of 62 people, including educators and scientists, signed a statement calling for controversial guidelines to be retained because it is "stimulating, balanced, non-biased and has worked well" .

To date, the theory of evolution is the only robust and established scientific theory regarding the biodiversity on Earth. It has stood numerous tests ever since publishing, and is supported by overwhelming evidence and confirmed by other areas of sciences like biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physics and geology.

This central theory in biology has substantially contributed to many of the greatest scientific and technological advancements in modern medicine and agriculture, thus has saved many lives and improved their living.

The other "explanations", such as Creationism or Intelligent Design, are not even consistent with the definition of science, and have been dismissed by scientists worldwide as pseudo-sciences with strong reasons. Scientists have already stated openly and widely that these unscientific ideas should not be taught in science classes .

The problematic statement in the new biology and combined science syllabuses will open a loophole for pseudo-sciences, resulting in a great damage to quality education in Hong Kong, whereby knowledge on the theory and fact of evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with ideas or notions not testable by science, and thus contradicts the objectives of science education.

There are evidences showing damages have already been made to science education, as schools and teachers with religious background unscrupulously teach Creationism and Intelligent Design during science classes.

Education Bureau, as stated in its vision statement, is responsible for providing quality education to our next generation; it must address this problem seriously and with urgency, and clearly expresses their position publicly, to prevent this problem from further spoiling Hong Kong’s international image.

My comment:

I have changed my earlier title because it may sound a bit offensive, but to me, Christianity is really a stone-aged belief system. It was initially created by the Hebrews and later propogated to the whole world when all of the teachings in the Old Testament were clearly only meant for the Hebrews (or Jewish). Some of the examples including the idea of Messiah to save the world (when in the Old Testament, Messiah was meant to save the Jews only), slavery (according to the bible, all foreigners other than Jews can be LEGITIMATELY enslaved, just read my earlier post on this). I used to believe so deeply in it when I was ignorant about all these issues in the bible, when I did not think critically about these issues and when I was unaware that all these hidden issues can be so hurtful to certain groups of people (like women, gays, black people who used to be enslaved etc, non-believers etc).

And I think this book is not only hurtful and offensive to some of the fellow human who do nothing but just being who they are or who they are born to be, it is also an impediment to the human progress. I always believe that if you intend to learn more about the universe (natural science), learn more about the society and human behaviour (social science), you have to first admit that you're so ignorant on many things. There are still so many things out there that you don't know about, you have to first humble yourself and admit your ignorance in order to appreciate the awe that the knowledge of the universe can bring you.

Learning new things works best when you don't have pre-supposition or judgement about things that you want to learn. When you have the following presumptions in mind:

1. There must be a God

2. Universe must be created by a God

3. God must have created the universe in 6 days

4. No other theory is right, bible, which was written thousands of years ago, must be right

how can you learn new knowledge? How could you continue filling water into a glass that has already been filled? What else is there for you to research or prove about the origin of life if you believe that everything is created by God (which is not provable at all)? That to me, is more of an excuse to slack and inhibit the progress of humankind to discover new knowledge, it's totally not helpful to human progress at all. Why should we teach this kind of wishful/unhelpful thinking or attitude to children in school, and to make the matter worse, in a science class?

Life is full of uncertainties, full of unknowns, full of possibilities. I'm willing to admit that I'm not well-read enough to know all about the origin of life, to know all about the history of humankind on earth. I'm willing to admit that I know too little, and many of the times, I don't have answers to many questions, eg: Does God exist? Does God create all of us and the universe? My honest answer is "I don't know". The one that says he/she knows, is either lying, or being misled by some people or some books (which is written by people and claimed to be written by God) to think that he/she knows the answer.

As a child, I used to demand for certainty, everything must be either in black or white, good or evil, good guy or bad guy, and what bible says must be the truth. But hey, we grow up, and growing up means accepting more uncertainties and grey areas, it means you have to think more for yourselves and no more standard answer to spoon-feed you. Many values I learn as a child, are either too simplistic or inconsistent with each other. I learn to exercise more critical thinking and evaluate them as I grow up and acquire more knowledge about the world, either through interaction with people from different backgrounds, countries, genders, or cultures or through reading books about people's experience, scientific discoveries or simply thinking about it.

Everyday, everywhere, every moment and every occasion, I see learning opportunity, that is the day when I realise that bible is no longer, and can no longer be the guidance of my life, that there is no standard answer there for me to rely upon as the source of truth.

Source:

http://www.gopetition.com/online/28149.html

Is homosexuality a choice?

For those who believe that homosexuality is a conscious lifestyle choice made by an individual, and it is contagious and can spread to other people like a virus (Note: some people argue that if homosexual behaviour is legalised, there will be more people "choose" to be gay and cause the social fabric to break down. The fact is, all western developed countries have already legalised it many years ago and some have even extended it to gay marriage, and nothing of such has ever happened or is happening. Globally, all the developed countries have legalised it (except Sg), currently only those very backward countries like Muslim & 3rd world countries are still criminalizing homosexual act.), it's time to update yourself with the latest scientific findings and get rid of your ignorance.

Also, for some (religious) people who are incapable to think/evaluate for themselves and have to rely on the bible (which is so wrong on many things) to say that "homosexuality is a sin" without the application of any logical reasoning, maybe you should start to exercise your "precious & intelligent mind" (possibly) created by your God.

These series of videos show the journey of a British actor John Barrowman in his quest for answer to the question "why is he gay?" I wish people can shed off their ignorance and gain enlightenment about "homosexuality" after watching these videos. Enjoy! (I believe ah cat would enjoy the "sexy british accent", haha!)

Conventional Logic vs Religious Logic

This really makes me laugh! And it's so true, so many (religious) ppl are having this kind of "religious mindset", no matter how well-educated they are. It's a sad reality.

Can the bible withstand public scrutiny?

While ah cat has been watching/reading Twilight saga, I have been watching another non-fictional saga unraveled over the past two weeks. It's about a Singapore NGO, called AWARE--Association of Women for Action and Research. I heard about this organization before as it was a fairly outspoken organization, especially on women issues, but I never paid much attention to it in the past since it is a women organization, till recently.....

On 28 March (Sat), something unusual happened such that it made news in the media.

A bunch of newcomers, who joined the NGO for just a few months, had won 9 out of 12 positions. Many old guards who had been with the organization since its establishment in 1984 lost the elections. And during the AGM, there was an unprecedented large turnout of new members (about 80%), who joined during Jan- March 2009. The number of turnout was tripled that of normal times. When this happened, people who read the news would naturally have the following questions in mind:

Who are these new women?
What do they wanna achieve?
Why was there such a big spike in new members during Jan- March 2009?
Where were they from?
What do they have in common?
What is their agenda?
Was this an orchestrated takeover or just simply a coincident (which is quite unlikely)?

Well, the ST (Straits Times) reporter was really smart in finding the links between the newcomers. Slowly, as more and more news were reported (either press media or online media), people began to see their hidden agenda. The unraveling of the incident has really been an exciting and interesting episode.

To let the public have some clues about the background of the newcomers, the reporter had given the following information:
- previously during the episode of the repeal of the anti-gay law 377A (which was then also hotly debated), a number of the newly elected members or spouse had written to the media to condemn gays and termed it as a "lifestyle", as if people intentionally wanna choose to be gay to be discriminated against.
- 6 of the newly elected members attend the same church
- The church they attended has a very strong view against homosexuals

With these 3 pieces of information, and a few subsequent statements made by the new members and their "mentor", known as Dr Thio Su Mien (former NUS Law Dean, who is clearly the mastermind of the whole orchestrated takeover) who appeared suddenly during the press conference, everything seemed to fall in place nicely. Guess what, Dr Thio, who is former Law Dean, tried to convinced the public that AWARE was promoting homosexual lifestyles, and the old Excos were promoting homosexuality with her flawed logic. Sometimes, it makes me wonder what does it mean to claim to be a christian when you can make such a false claim so blatantly and knowingly that even a person with secondary education knows that it's false (you can just read what AWARE has done in the past on its website), let alone a Law Dean. To know the arguments and counter arguments, you may refer to this blog post.

As the whole saga is too long to be told here, you can visit here if you are interested to know the whole saga in detail.

Now, you might ask: So what has it got to do with the bible?

As their agenda was exposed by the media and online bloggers, and their church was widely publicized, people start to question many things they found on the church's website, one of the articles found was this. In the article, there are some quotes from the bible that preach questionable/unacceptable values (related to woman) in the context of our modern society (you don't have to take my quotes, you can read the whole chapter on your own if you think that I quote out of context):

(i) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 4:13, English Standard Version)

(ii) Let the woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a women to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing-- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ( 1 Timothy 2:11-15, English Standard Version)

(iii) Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband.......But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows. (1 Timothy 5:9-16, English Standard Version)

All the three parts are clearly outrageous and are clearly preaching "stone-aged values", especially when read by a female who believes in gender equality.

I would especially like to comment on the third part. It's INSULTING, VERY VERY INSULTING. Mr Paul, you're insulting my mum OK! Let's see what Mr Paul said in point form:

• Only widow who is older than 60 years old is a real widow (if you read the whole chapter)
• younger widow has stronger sexual desire ("passions" is the euphemism), so they tend to marry again
• her choice to marry again is to be condemned
• young widows learn to be idlers, gossipers, slanderers, busybodies
• so, let them marry, bear children, do house chores, so that they don't have the chance to slander
• let woman who has relatives who are widows care for them, DON'T BURDEN THE CHURCH
• BECAUSE YOUNG WIDOWS are not REAL WIDOWS (This is really unconscionable and insulting to me!)

I am truly furious when I see this: condemning a woman whose husband has just passed away, just because SHE IS YOUNG (not more than 60)! And you call that a book that preaches love and salvation?! I bet you will be more outrageous if you read the whole chapter!

And how can the public not furious, not question, not criticize this kind of totally biased values? And this is not a quote from any person, it's from the "holy bible", which is supposed to be the foundation of Christianity!

Ok, I have finished venting my anger. Back to my question: Can the bible withstand public scrutiny? You be the judge-- objectively and honestly. Dear ladies out there, I hope you can really say something, this is about you and I said this before, please defend your conscience, not the book!

Pop Quiz on "The Passion of Christ"

This is a quiz to test your general knowledge and understanding of the stories on The Passion of Christ (designed by me) starting from the moment Jesus entered Jerusalem. Everyone, including those who know little about the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus are welcome to do the quiz if you're interested. I think those who are interested can read my previous post to gain some background understanding of the questions below.

Ready?

1. When Jesus entered Jerusalem during the Triumphal Entry, how many animals did he ride?

a. 1 animal—colt
b. 1 animal—donkey
c. 2 animals—donkey & colt
d. All of the above

2. What did Jesus say to Peter regarding his denial of Jesus?

a. Before the rooster crows twice, Peter will deny Jesus 3 times
b. The rooster will not crow till Peter had denied Jesus 3 times.
c. All of the above

3. Who carried the cross which Jesus was going to be crucified on ?

a. Jesus himself
b. Simon of Cyrene
c. All of the above.

4. What was Jesus’ reaction during the trial before Pilate?

a. Jesus answered “You have said so” when Pilate asked him if he was the King of the Jews and gave no further answer.
b. Jesus told Pilate that “his kingdom that is not of this world”, “he has come into the world to speak the truth”, “declaring Pilate has no ultimate power over him, except what has been given him by God”.
c. All of the above

5. When was the curtain of the temple ripped?

a. The curtain of the temple was torn in two after Jesus breathed his last.
b. The curtain of the temple was torn in two before Jesus breathed his last.
c. All of the above.

6. What did the centurion said when Jesus died?

a. Truly this man was the son of God
b. Certainly this man was innocent
c. All of the above.

7. What did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus do to Jesus?

a. They mocked him like what the priests, scribes and elders did
b. One of the criminals mocked Jesus, but another rebuked him and insisted that Jesus was innocent and asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom
c. All of the above.

8. How many times did Jesus die?

a. 1 time
b. 2 times

9. When did Jesus die?

a. 9 a.m., the Day of Passover
b. About noon, the Day of Preparation for the Passover
c. All of the above, though it sounds absurd.

10. Who dealt with the corpse of Jesus. ie: wrapped in a linen shroud and laid him in the tomb?

a. Joseph from Arimathea only
b. Joseph from Arimathea and Nicodemus
c. All of the above.

11. Who actually went to the tomb?

a. Mary alone
b. Mary and another Mary
c. Mary Magdalene, Mary and the mother of James, and Salome
d. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee (possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other unknown women)
e. All of the above.

12. What did they see when they were at the tomb?

a. The stone had been rolled away from the tomb, and a young man in the tomb
b. A great earthquake, an angel descended from heaven and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
c. Stone had been rolled away from the tomb, and two men in the tomb
d. The stone had been taken away from the tomb, no one inside, but Peter went again and saw some linen cloths lying there.
e. All of the above.

13. If the women met someone in the tomb, what were the women told by the “messenger(s)” they met in the tomb?

a. Told the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, Jesus was going to Galilee before the disciples, asked the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him.
b. Told the disciples that Jesus had risen, like how Jesus once told the disciples when Jesus was in Galilee.
c. All of the above.

14. Did the women tell the disciples what they saw?

a. They ran to tell the disciples what they saw and heard.
b. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
c. All of the above.

15. If the women told someone what they saw in tomb, who did they tell?

a. The eleven disciples
b. The eleven disciples and all the rest
c. Simon Peter and another (unnamed) disciple, the one whom Jesus loved
d. All of the above

16. What did the disciples do in response?

a. They had no response because Jesus appeared immediately after the women told them
b. They did not believe the women because it seemed like an “idle tale”. Peter rose and ran to the tomb.
c. Peter and the other (unnamed) disciple ran to the tomb to see for themselves.
d. All of the above

17. Where should the disciples suppose to go to meet Jesus?

a. Galilee
b. Stayed in Jerusalem, not to depart from Jerusalem
c. All of the above.

18. Where did Jesus ascend to heaven?

a. Bethany
b. Galilee
c. All of the above.

Enjoy doing the quiz! If you're keen to know the answers to all the questions, please click here.

Jesus, Interrupted-- by Bart Ehrman

I started out this blog due to boredom. Now that my lifestyle has changed, my enthusiasm to continue posting has gone down tremendously. Nevertheless, I will still continue posting, just my my frequency of posting will decrease by a lot.

Talk about my recent life, I'm truly happy recently. Not that I'm not happy in the past, but quite a number of things which are of significance to me have happened recently (including the moment when I'm writing this post), which have really made me happier than I used to be. Nevertheless, I shall keep to my policy of not discussing about my personal stories here in this blog.

Recently, I have also read a few really good books. One of them is Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart Ehrman. It is really a very fascinating book to read. Though I have come to the realisation that bible is just another human book, the bible still remains to be a source of fascination to me. And Bart Ehrman's honest relevation of the truth is really what makes the book so interesting and so informative. After I read the book, I'm just amazed by how ignorant I used to be when I hold the bible so high up and told people that it was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In my past few posts about bible (here, here and here) I mainly talk about the old testament, very few about the new testament. This book deals with the problems in the new testament. As Bart Ehrman is an academic historian specializing in the study of new testament, he evaluated the claims in the bible with regard to the authorship (who wrote the new testament), historical Jesus, origin of christianity and the reasons for the (many) contradictions in the gospels.


I shall just quote some of the interesting excerpts for the benefit of those who don't have the chance to read the book.

• Of all the 27 books in the new testament, only 8 of them are almost certain to have been written by the people traditionally thought to be their authors.


• The Gospels for the most part do not provide disinterested factual information about Jesus, but contain stories that had been in oral circulation for decades before being written down. This makes it very difficult to know what Jesus actually said, did and experienced. Scholars have devised ways to get around these problems, but the reality is that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (for eg the divine being become human in the Gospel of John) represents a later understanding of who Jesus was, not a historical account of who he really was.
• There were lots of other Gospels available to the early Christians, as well as epistle, Acts and apocalypses. Many of these claimed to be written by apostles, and on the surface such claims are no more or less plausible than the claims of the books that eventually came to make up the New Testament. This raises the question of who made the decisions about which books to include, and of what grounds they had for making the decisions.

Though the author, through his profession, came to the realization that Christianity was just a human creation, his attitude is relatively different from mine, he adopts a more nuanced approach to his belief. Below are some of the excerpts that might summarise his attitude towards Christianity:

• In my case, when I came to realize that Christianity was a human creation, I felt the need to evaluate what I thought about its claims. And I came to think that they resonated extremely well-- with how I looked at the world and thought about my place in it.
• But the religion built up around God and Jesus was based, I came to believe, on various myths, not historical facts. Jesus' death was not a myth, but the idea that it was a death that brought about salvation was a myth.
• Salvation, for me, became less and less a question of whether I would go to heaven or hell when I die. I came to realise that these concepts were also, in a sense, myths. There is not literally a place of eternal torment where God, or the demons doing his will, will torture poor souls for 30 trillion years (as just the beginning) for sins they committed for 30 years. What kind of never-dying eternal divine Nazi would a God like that be? (Note: I couldn't agree more with this statement.)
• There came a time in my life when I found that the myths no longer made sense to me, no longer resonated with me, no longer informed the way I looked at the world. I came to a place where I could no longer see how-- even if viewed mythically-- the central Christian beliefs were in any sense "true" for me, given the oppressive and powerful reality of human suffering in the world.

For those who think that the bible has a unified theme throughout the 66 books in both New & Old Testament, and can be summarised into a simple statements (for eg: "the ten commandments", or "it's all about a loving, fair and just God"), this is his advice:

• It would be impossible, I should think, to argue that the Bible is a unified whole, inerrant in all its parts, inspired by God in every way. It can't be that. There are too many divergences, discrepancies, contradictions, too many alternative ways of looking at the same issue, alternatives that are often at odds with one another. The bible is not a unity, it is a massive plurality. God did not write the bible, people did.
• In my opinion, people need to use their intelligence to evaluate what they find to be true and untrue in the bible. This is how we need to live life generally. Everything we hear and see we need to evaluate-- whether the inspiring writings of the bible, or the inspiring writings of Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, or George Eliot, of Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, or the Dalai Lama.

And Bart Ehrman has many interesting comments on the various gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. These are the materials taught in the major advanced bible study institutions in US and are well-known among the bible scholars but are never passed down to persons in the pew-- to quote his words --" It is the view taught in all the major textbooks on the New Testament used in these institutions. It is the view taught in seminaries and divinity schools. It is what pastors learn when they are preparing for ministry. And why isn't this more widely known? Why is it that the person in the pew-- not to mention the person in the street-- knows nothing about this? Your guess is as good as mine."

About Matthew (one example, you can read the book for more examples):

• We have seen that Matthew is particularly keen to show that everything in Jesus birth, life and death was a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy. So why was he born of a virgin? It was because the Hebrew prophet Isaiah indicated that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Immanuel" (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14). Actually, that's not exactly what Isaiah said. In the Hebrew bible, Isaiah indicates that a "young woman" will conceive and bear a son, a prediction of a future Messiah but of an event that was soon to take place in Isaiah's own day. When the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek, however, Isaiah's "young woman" (Hebrew alma; there is a different Hebrew word for "virgin") came to be rendered by the Greek word for "virgin", and that is the form of the bible that Matthew read..... So Matthew wrote that Jesus was born of a virgin because that's what he thought Scripture predicted.

About Mark:

• It appears that the final twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not original to Mark's Gospel but were added by a scribe in a later generation. Mark ended his Gospel at what is now 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they had seen. In my discussion I accept the scholarly consensus that verses 16:8-21 were a later addition to the Gospel. (Note: I check my bible and do find that there is an indication that these 12 verses were added by scribes and not found in the earliest manuscript.)
• Since the nineteenth century, scholars have recognised that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, around 65-70 CE. Both Matthew and Luke, writing fifteen or twenty years later, used Mark as one of their own accounts. That is why almost all of Mark's stories can be found in Matthew or Luke, and it is also why sometimes all three of these Gospels agree word by word in the way they tell the stories.

About Luke:

• The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. And how could such thing even be imagined? Joseph returns to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the town of our ancestors a thousand years back-- where would you go?........Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth. Matthew did too, but he got him born in a different way.

About John:

• One of my favourite apparent discrepancies-- I read John for years without realizing how strange this one is-- comes in Jesus' "Farewell Discourse," the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, "Lord, where are you going?" A few verses later Thomas says, "Lord, we do not know where you are going" (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, "Where are you going?" (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.

I think these excerpts should be interesting enough to entice you to read the book. It is a light-hearted reading with no jargons. Hope you enjoy the book!

Thoughts on Afterlife III: Response to DS' comments on my previous post

Finally I have a chance to really write something on my blog. And as promised, I will respond to DS' comments on my previous post. As there are many issues raised, I shall respond to them one by one, some requires a lot of clarifications but some don't.

1. "religion = a belief
believer = people who practice their belief"

My response:
Agree, I think I never mix up religion and believer in any of my post before. I'm clearly aware of that distinction, as I was a christian before, and I'm very well aware of that kind of criticism from non-believer, ie: "because a christian does something wrong, therefore christianity/bible is wrong". Maybe you are referring to me quoting the example that a mother (who happened to be a christian) who stoned two of her sons to death and left the third with permanent injuries because she claimed that she heard God telling her to do. Maybe it's my language problem, and thus my writing gives you the impression that "so it's like u saw a christian murdering, then u related it to 'bible say murder is right" , if that is the case, I must say sorry for my language problem, because I never intend to mean that way.

Before going into further discussion, let me lay out the biblical background first:

Summary of the event:
a. God tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son.
After these things, God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:1-2)

b. Abraham did what god told him.
"When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son." (Genesis 22:9-10)

c. God eventually told Abraham not to kill his son.
"But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He (referring to angel) said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing that you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:11-12)

After understanding the background, let me now ask some fundamental questions.

i. Will god (I mean the same god in the bible) asks a human to do something unethical/immoral?
The answer is clearly, yes. This is not only referring to this specific case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (because god asked him to do so), you can also revisit the list in my letter.

ii. If god can ask somebody to do both ethical and unethical/moral and immoral things, how can you be sure that everytime when you hear your "invisible friend" talking to you, he must be God? And not Satan? And not your own imagination? Again, how can you be so sure?

iii. Let's imagine your dad asking you to sacrifice your son to show that you fear him/you love him--> is this morally right?

iv. Let's imagine you're Isaac who was just a few years old, who was tied up and put on the altar, with the person that you trust the most, love the most holding a knife on your face and trying to kill you.
Let's just go through this thought process, how traumatic do you think you would be as a little kid?
What kind of effect do you think you would have, mentally and emotionally to go through this kind of process?
Do you think there is no harm done to the child at all? Do you seriously think that?
And do you believe that a God who did this kind of outrageous (if it happened in today's society, just see the case above) and inhumane thing to an innocent small kid can be called all-loving, fair and just? Remember that that is not just a number, but a human life with life stories, aspirations and relationships like you do. Just put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself these questions.

So what is the relevance of all these with the woman killing his son?

i. Obviously, (from your comment) you think that god did not tell her to kill her son like what god told Abraham in the bible (quote from your comment "this mother twisted her understanding in her religion, obviously"). But how can you be so sure? God did that before, what makes you think that he wouldn't do it again just to "test her" like how he tested Abraham before?

ii. Assuming that God did talk to her, why was she wrong? She was just doing what god told her to do? She was just doing what Abraham did to his child too-- trying to kill his son. So shouldn't you praise her for what she had done, for her being so faithful to the calling of the god? (if you truly believe that what Abraham did was morally right and worth praising, ie: by calling him father of faith) And shouldn't she be called "mother of faith"?

This is the background and my response to your first issue. Sorry for the long reply, but I hope it adds more clarity to my previous response. Now I move on to second issue.

2. "about the Abraham and Isaac, this incident is indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world. as for abraham, he's known as 'father of faith' becoz he strongly believe that life was given by HIM. but then in the end, god stopped him last minute"

"so, the difference in your comparison is that, the mother killed her son vs Isaac wasnt killed"

My response:

I must say something, not referring to you in particular, but the Christians that I have met and discussed with about this issue so far. Without generalizing this to all the Christians, I must stress that what I say is only referring to the few Christians that I have discussed with so far (including DS).

Usually Christians defend the obscurities in the bible by the following ways:

i. Using speculations to support a (biblical) argument
For eg in this case: there is not a single passage, or verse in the bible that says "this incident is indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world." If you find one, you can let me know. Yet this explanation, which is a speculation or a wild imagination (not found anywhere in the bible) is so prevalent among Christians (that I have discussed with). I'm very well aware of this explanation, of course, I have been attending sunday school since kindergarten. It's almost like a standard answer to this issue. But the truth is, it is merely a speculation or interpretation.

Why I don't like to use a speculation/interpretation to support a (biblical) argument? The fact is, interpretations can be so diverse, so varied, so subjective and so unreliable. Anyone can interpret bible verses their own way (since no one has monopoly over the interpretation of the verses). So, if I'm gonna make a statement about the bible, I'll surely quote the verses, and not making any speculation or interpretation myself. Let the bible speaks for itself, it doesn't need a spokeperson.

Having said that, I will still like to entertain your speculation. So you think the intention of this incident is to "indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world". The intention is noble, no doubt on that, but does that justify asking a father to kill a little innocent kid, does that make killing a son morally right? To give you an analogy, let's say I intend my son to behave properly, there is nothing wrong with my intention right? But does that justify me abusing my child to achieve my intention? In chinese, I would say that is “不择手段". It doesn't matter how noble your intention is, asking a person to kill his son is just plain wrong, I don't think any further explanation is required. This leads to my next point.

ii. Lowering morality/ethical standard to fit the bible
As mentioned above, asking a person to kill his son is simply morally wrong, please don't tell me that "asking somebody to kill his son is right because the intention is noble."

Another point is:
It doesn't matter whether eventually the son was killed by Abraham, ordering a person to kill his son to show his fear or love for his father/master is simply wrong.
To give an analogy, it doesn't matter whether a president is eventually successfully assassinated, employing an assassin to kill the president is just plain wrong. The result doesn't justify anything. Please don't tell me that "because Isaac was not killed, therefore, God asked Abraham to kill his son is right."

The point I want to make here is that "Defend your conscience, don't defend a book for the sake of defending it. Please don't lower/corrupt your morality standard to fit a book. Stand for what you believe is right (I don't think you will believe "asking somebody to kill his son" is morally right)." This is also my plea to all Christians who still have conscience and a rational mind.

iii. Quoting out of context
This is also one of the most popular arguments given by Christians when I discussed about contradictions or unacceptable values in the bible. I will often ask: "Maybe I'm not intelligent as you are, maybe I'm ignorant, but if you think I quote the verse out of context, please tell me what is the context, and please point out to me from which part of the bible you get the context". That will be my response. You're welcome to tell me the context, and justify it using bible verses/passages, please don't give me speculations or your own interpretations.

3. "if u read the bible in more detail, u will realize that new testament is actually the reflect of the old testament, they complement each other"

My response:
Thanks for reminding me about things that I have learnt in my sunday school since kindergarten. I never deny this in my post. What I'm writing about in my blog are things that you don't and will never learn from sunday school or any sermon ( I don't think any pastor will preach about "contradictions in the bible"). The bible contains complements, as well as contradictions. The contradictions here are not only referring to "textual contradictions", but also "values contradictions". On one hand, bible talks about loving and caring, on the other hand, bible talks about slavery is ok, human sacrifice is ok, discrimination against the handicapped is ok. On one hand, every single word in the bible is claimed to be the "word of God" and absolutely right, yet on the other hand, it's contents had been changed so many times by scribes and unknown authors (if you have read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, if you are lazy to read, you can listen to the relevant radio broadcast here, here & here)

4. "about the 'newness' u mention, u can refer to the bible which said that they were exiled from eden to a world with limitation and suffering. so this can be referred as time, space, lifespan, etc etc. So when everthing is unlimited in that world, being happy is like 'breathing' u wont feel xian at all.yes time always exists, but the dimension that afterlife exist is the other dimension distinct from the dimension where time exist. ok.. this sound very weird but then, as said 'time' is a finite factor. in current world we may think that 'time' is increasing as time goes by, but every living thing or energy form in any part of the universe is sort of like having their own 'clock system' which is in a countdown mode?"

My response:
Thanks for your speculations. Seriously, the only honest response I can give is "I don't know", and I don't believe any living person actually knows how heaven (if there is) is like. I can only base my discussion on things that I can see, feel or imagine from my past experience of life (which may not be reflective of how the heaven looks like). Of course, heaven could have different meaning to different people, and I think everyone has their own "model of heaven". I shall refrain from disputing your "model of heaven" here.

5. "And go read up, bible do say tat not all so-called christians may go to heaven, and not all non-believers go to hell. seriously, u really need to read every corner of the 'newspaper' not just the highlighted one.."

My response:
Sorry I must say this, and sorry if my understanding of your statement "And go read up.......seriously, u really need to read every corner of the 'newspaper' not just the highlighted one.." is wrong, I couldn't help but wondering if you think that I intentionally pick the "malevolent verses" and try to mislead people without reading the whole passage. If that's my purpose, I'm in no way more honest than those christians who try to pick the "benign verses" and try to mislead people to think that bible is all about all-loving, fair and just god.

If you think that I miss out something, feel free to point out to me, I admit that I don't have super-memory and am not capable of remembering every single word and passage in the bible. But if I were to discuss with somebody about biblical stuff nowadays, I will point out to him the exact verses or passages to counter his argument and I will assume that he misses out that line, and not think that he purposely tries to mislead me.

On your point about "not all so-called christians may go to heaven, and not all non-believers go to hell.", I agree with you that, according to bible, not all so-called christians may go to heaven--> "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21),

but disagree with you that not all non-believers go to hell (according to bible)-->
i) "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
ii) "Jesus said to him, " I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

And let's revisit my previous statement--" I don't think that having a hell filled with more than 80% of the people on earth suffering (since there are only about 10-20% of the people on Earth claim to be Christians) is a way to make me feel happy if I were to be in heaven."

I'm very fully aware that not all christians will go to heaven (according to the bible), that's why I think there will be more than 80% , probably 90% of the people going to hell. I must say that I don't know what qualifies you as a christian that can enter heaven, pls see my letter on "How to have eternal life/ inherit the Kingdom of God?" for the various criteria (not just one), I bet not more than 1% of the people on earth can enter heaven (if according to the criteria laid out).

6. "and about slavery and stuff u mention, it's actually a very interesting part.. go read up the whole chapter which state the origin of slavery..i forget which part, i'll show u when i happen to pass by that chapter again..slaves are normally foreigners, u have to find out the origin and the foreigners as well, and also the consequences the israelites have to bear to have slaves."

My response:
Yes, I agree it is interesting that a god that is claimed to be all-loving, fair and just actually sanctions slavery, an abhorrent practice which is clearly against humanity. There are two main parts of the bible that explicitly mention about the law of slavery, of course there are also other parts that contain slavery, but I shall just focus on the two main parts which are the central passages to understanding of the slavery practices in the bible.

The two parts are:
i) Exodus 21:1-11, 21:20-21, 21:26-27, 21:32
ii) Leviticus 25:39-46

According to the bible, there are 2 types of slaves-- Hebrew slaves (in Exodus) and non-Hebrew slaves/foreigner (in Leviticus). In fact, either in the Old Testament or New Testament, there is no single verse that condemns or prohibits the practice of slavery. Does it matter whether the slaves are foreigner or Hebrew? Is it implicitly assumed to be morally right to enslave a foreigner but not a Hebrew? I don't know what's the point of you mentioning whether the slave is foreigner or Hebrew. It doesn't matter whether I enslave an Indonesian or a Malaysian, the practice of slavery is just plain wrong. Again, please defend your conscience, not the book. I have actually written a post on slavery, not sure if you have read it. It's my further elaboration on this issue.

7. "and dont relate some of my thoughts to christianity as well, like the one i think tat this world is so meaningless, and i'd rather do nth and die LOL... "

My response:
Did I do that? I actually did not have any biblical reference in my 1st post on afterlife. Again, if my language misleads you to think that, I'm sorry for that.

8. "bible actually say u should actually nourish urself and the ppl around u given ur talent and conditionand time is limited, u've to treasure it by doing sth meaningful, for u will be rewarded or punished accordingly. (of coz i paraphrase, im not a bible, i dont remember every verse, i summarize and remember the main point)"

My response:
With due respect, I think you're referring to Matthew 25:14-30, just my guess, sorry if I'm wrong.

9. "im not implying that u're anti-christ o wad la. i feel that u're more of anti-supernatural-being-existence"

My response:
Sorry, your guess is incorrect. I'm actually open to things that I don't know.
Do I believe in the existence of God, heaven, hell, afterlife, angel, ghost, holy spirit, miracles (true miracles, like turning water into wine, not magic tricks) ? Frankly, my most honest answer to you is I don't know. I will not pretend that I know for sure, which a lot of religious leaders preach about. All I can say is "I DON'T KNOW", and I believe any honest person should give this answer too, and not pretending that they know everything for sure, especially about things like supernatural-beings, or extra-terrestrial beings. Of course, I'm open to the possibility of the existence of those things, if not I won't be bothered to discuss about god, heaven, hell and etc.

But there are many things that I can be sure of. One thing is that bible is really the word of human, not the word of god. Another thing that I'm sure is that if I were to choose a religious text that preaches love and compassion and good morality, the bible, which contains so many "hateful elements" will surely not be listed in my top 5.

10. "i strongly believe there is the existence of a powerful being/creator, normally human give it a name, 'GOD'. this feeling turn stronger and stronger throughout my uni times becoz i realize there's a lot of phenomenon which cannot be explained in whole scientifically.eg. the big bang theory."

My response:
Again, I'm totally open to the possibility of the existence of a God. But I will not immediately jump to the conclusion that the god in the bible is the "true god". There are hundreds and thousands of gods on earth, how can you be so sure that the god in your bible is the "true and only god"? And contrary to your uni experience, my study of economics actually opens up my mind to the possibility that there could be no god at all (of course not directly, since economics doesn't study about God, but in an indirect way). Evolution might be the way how we come about. It's a possibility that I cannot ignore. Again, my answer to the question of the origin of life is "I don't know", and I don't attempt to simply fill in that gap with "God" just because I don't know how it happens.

Of course, to say that "God created it" when responding to the unknowns is an easy solution and easy way out, but when I stood in front of the fossils formed millions and billions of years ago when I was in Australia, I asked myself, "Aren't we supposed to be more humble and be more diligent in searching for answers to the unknowns, rather than filling in the gaps with the word "God", and pretend that we know how everything comes about (ie: God created it) just because somebody unknown (the author of Genesis is still unknown today, and it's not Moses), who didnt even know a teeny-weeny bit about astrology, biology and chemistry etc wrote it thousands of years ago?

Finally, I must thank you for raising so many issues so I can have the chance to really clarify and discuss about them. Thanks!

Thoughts on Afterlife II

DS, your comment on my previous post raises a few interesting points that I would like to respond to. Because I anticipate my response to be quite long, so I think it would be better for me to write a post instead.

First of all, thanks for your comment. I usually will not dismiss somebody's view as absurd as long as it makes logical sense. And I must clarify that I'm not against Christianity, I'm just against accepting claims made by a book or a person on face value without considering their validity and sensibility. There are in fact a lot of good teachings in the bible, for eg: the Golden rule: Do unto others as what you would have them do unto you (Luke 6:31) is the teaching that I like the most. The reason why I seldom talk about the good values in the bible is because I believe there are myriads of people out there who are much more qualified than me to talk about these good verses. But if you want to be honest with yourself about your belief, you should also confront the "dark side" of the bible openly and honestly and not trying to escape, hide or rationalise them with speculations. And just to respond to ds about the triviality of some of the bible contradictions mentioned in my letter to my friend, I do agree with you that some contradictions are trivial (I mentioned about this in my letter too and I have read about them on the wiki), but they're not if you demand perfection since the book is known to be "words of God", how can there be careless mistakes given that God is perfect?

I'm actually ok to give all those contradictions the benefits of the doubt (that's why I put them at the bottom of the letter), I'm much more concerned about the moral values emanated from some of the "malevolent verses". Do you know that there was actually a mother who stoned two of her sons to death and left the third with permanent injuries because she claimed that she heard God telling her to do so, exactly like what God told Abraham to do with his son Isaac? Can you blame her for doing so, or call her crazy or insane, why don't you praise her for her "faith" and "obedience" towards God's calling, like how many Christians praise Abraham for his "great faith in God"? I'm glad that I have stimulated your interest to read The book, you should really read it, start from the Old Testament. Like I've mentioned before, it's funny and weird that so many Christians put so much faith on a book that they know so little about. And I encourage you to read it with a critical mind, just like how you read newspaper, I bet you'll discover a whole lot more "interesting" things. If possible, read the English version so that you can access to more original translation.

Ok, I'm a bit out of topic, back to my thoughts on afterlife. I agree with you that happiness does stem from certain biological factors and the exhaustion of the chemical substance will cause one to cease to be happy. But I think there are more things at work, we are often happy or unhappy because of our memory of the past. For eg: we don't always feel happy when we have food to eat everyday, or have clothes to wear, or have a proper bed to sleep on, or a beautiful house to live in, or see our parents everyday, why is that? Because these things are already in our memory, they are not new to us, they are not "surprises" that make us feel happy. If all these are presented to a kid from Cambodia, Myanmar, North Korea or any 3rd world country, I believe the kid will be thrilled. Why do you think many guys still have extra-marital affairs even when they have beautiful wives? It's because of the "surprise" or "newness" that the external parties offer. Unless I will lead a memoryless life in heaven, I don't know how am I gonna be happy perpetually for more than a thousand years. Regarding the time, I believe we are talking about the same thing, it's just that I describe eternity as "unlimited free flow of time". Whether you like it or not, time always exists, but when you have eternal life, time becomes meaningless (Sorry, I don't remember the bible mentions otherwise, maybe you can point out to me).

Oh, you also mention about hell, which I didnt mention in my previous post. Of course I know there is a hell, and I don't think that having a hell filled with more than 80% of the people on earth suffering (since there are only about 10-20% of the people on Earth claim to be Christians) is a way to make me feel happy if I were to be in heaven. Even though I consider my life now as heaven-like, I'm not happy at all when thinking about many people who are still suffering out there, who are forced to work as prostitutes to support their daily meals in Cambodia (I heard this from one of the volunteers), who are forced to give up their dreams and are unable to live as a normal person because of their disability, who are deprived of the love from their parents because their parents are incarcerated-- these are all real life stories happening everyday and every moment. And will I and can I be happy when watching so many of the fellow human beings suffering in perpetuity in hell? I wonder how.

Finally, I would like to present this wonderful song which I like a lot:

Thoughts on Afterlife

One of DS' posts has prompted me to express my thoughts on afterlife. Since I was a little kid, afterlife in heaven has always been a fascinating thing for me. I remember when I was still a small little kid (prob primary 1), I had a very interesting conversation with my mum about afterlife in heaven (Ds, I know my memory is scary). Our conversation was as follows:

Me : 妈，天堂是怎样子的？

Mum : 天堂就是一个没有烦恼，没有痛苦的地方咯！

Me : 这样在天堂我们还要不要做工？

Mum : 当然不用啦，在天堂你就每天享受生活，不用愁吃愁穿。

Me : 这样钱从哪里来？

Mum : 在天堂，你要什么上帝都会给你的。

Me : 这样子在天堂每天都不用做工，就一直玩耍？

Mum : 对啊，每天都不用做工，每天玩耍，所以生活就没有烦恼咯！

Me : 可是在天堂的日子很长哦，每天玩耍玩到一千年不会xian的meh？你每天快乐，过不久也是会麻木的哦！

Mum : (有点不耐烦）不知道哦，这个你就要问牧师了。

Haha，I don't know why, till now, I can still remember this conversation so vividly. Looking back now, I'm quite amazed by my ability to comprehend and ask such a philosophical question at such a young age during that time. I'm not bragging about myself, even till today, I'm still asking myself and thinking about the last question that I asked.

In my opinion, there are two problems with the concept of a "heaven" that enables people to live happily forever after-- Happiness and Sadness must always co-exist. You will never know what it feels like to be happy without knowing the meaning of sadness. For eg: how do you know going back home to see your family is a happy thing? It's because you have experienced the loneliness and sadness of staying away from your family. How do you know getting good result will make you happy? It's because you have experienced the disappointment and unpleasant experience of scoring badly in your exam and being scolded by your parents and teachers, or you can also know that from other people's experience. Happiness and sadness are always two sides to a coin. You won't know what it means to be happy without experiencing or knowing sadness in the first place.

The second problem is the concept of "living forever". To me, life is precious and meaningful because it will come to an end one day. That limitation of life and the scarcity of time makes me even more acutely aware of every second and every moment that passes by. I know I have only that limited amount of time to do things that I like to do and to make this world a better place. In fact, I dont understand why I need to have a "forever life" so that I can live a meaningful life. Forever life means that I have plenty amount of time, everything can wait and wait and wait since time will never end. I will just keep on procrastinating and keep on wasting my time without the fear that time will end one day and I have yet to do anything meaningful. Do you think this kind of life is more meaningful? There is a saying that "天下无不散的筵席”，it is precisely because of the limited amount of time that makes every gathering with friends and family so meaningful and precious, because once I miss the opportunity to see my friend this time, I might not be able to meet up with him/her again in the future.

When I was a small little kid, I used to think that "living forever" is the best, probably it's due to the fear of death. But now, I understand that there's a start and end to everything, it's just like watching a movie. Can you imagine watching a movie forever with no ending? I don't think anyone would wanna watch that kind of movie, it's precisely because there's an end to the movie that makes the movie unique and memorable. And death is just an ending to one's life movie.

After going through this thought process, I find that "forever life" is more scary than "death". Because I may just become a robot (since I will be numbed to the feeling of happiness) after some time and yet I will be living forever as a robot, with no ending.

Movies on One of The Darkest Moments in Recent Human History

I have watched two magnificent movies worth recommending recently. The background of both the movies was in German during World War II. Both of them show that there is still glory of humanism in the abyss of despair, they also show how easily human's mind can be corrupted by propaganda, be it political or religious, if human fail to think rationally for themselves and lose the curiosity to find out the truth. The price that human have to pay for getting easy, standard answers from a book, a person with authority (but not necessarily honest) or rumours is much too heavy.

When I started learning history in secondary school, I was told that the word "history" comes from "His Story"-- it's all about God's deeds. If that is true, I wonder how Holocaust could ever have happened, whereby 6 million Jews were tortured and masacred, 2-3 million Soviet prisoners of war killed, 1.8-2 million ethinc poles slaughtered, and a few hundred thousands of Romani, disabled, freemasons, gays, Jehovah witnesses exterminated. If I were to read the biography of a great, capable, all-loving, fair and just man, I wouldn't expect this kind of thing to happen under his rulership, let alone an almighty god. A country under a capable ruler would at least let his people have the chance to enjoy the fruits of peace and prosperity and see their standard of living increases by several folds over the course of development. At least I don't find such tragedy happening in Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew's biography or in the history of Singapore development. Is it really so unfair to expect a bit more than that from an almighty god (if there is one)?

The 1st movie that I watched was Valkyrie, starred by Tom Cruise. Valkyrie is actually an operation to remove Hitler from power by a group of people. The movie explained how and why the assassination of Hitler failed and paid respect to those people who exercised their clear conscience to oppose the brutality and insanity of the Hitler government. The movie is based on a true story, which shows that when the darkness falls, there are still people out there who are alert and not easily fallen prey to the propaganda and dogmatism imposed by the authority through media, books or rumours.

The 2nd movie-- The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas is also fantastic. It tells a story during the Holocaust through the lens of a kid, called Bruno. This movie is based on a bestselling novel by an Irish novelist John Boyne. To me, this movie really brings out the theme-- "curiosity" very well. Kids are arguably the most curious human category. In most cases, they like to ask questions, try out new things and experiment with new ideas. However, as they grow up, their curiosity is suppressed, diverted or flushed away by answers from authority that contain bigotry, lies, biases or inaccuracy. In the movie, Bruno was puzzled and unconvinced by the statements like "All Jews are evil", and guess what his teacher told him? --"You'll become the greatest explorer if you could ever find a nice Jew". The movie is about the encounter of two boys-- an innocent German boy who was curious but was not told the truth and an imprisoned Jewish boy who was tortured in a concentration camp. I must warn that this is not a happy movie as I was weeping uncontrollably throughout the movie-- sad, but reflective of the suffering experienced by the victims in the concentration camp.

Just my 2 cents about these two excellent and meaningful movies. Welcome your comment too if you have watched them.

My affair with A & E

I seldom talk about my personal stories in this blog. This time, I'll talk about my (love) affair with A & E in my tertiary education. It's also a journey of my self-discovery, helps me understand my likes and dislikes and make up my mind with certainty.

My affair with A started since high school. I first knew A when I was joining my friends in a party and chit-chatting with them. A didn't catch my attention at first sight and was not very well-known and popular among my friends, so I didn't really get to know A personally. Subsequently, I met A in another occasion, then I started noticing about A. I started chatting with A to find out more about A. A was shy though, and I couldn't really have the chance to get to know A well. I tried to find A's friends and ask them about A to get to know A better. Though A was not popular among my friends, I still managed to learn more about A through various sources.

My affair with A really started when I entered university. I met A quite often, nearly everyday. From then, I get to know A really well. I discovered that A was very intelligent, very sophisticated (knew a lot of weird and funny, but highly technical stuffs) but was also very shy and very quiet. A was not good at expressing feeling in words, that's why A didn't really chit-chat a lot with me when I met A. I could also barely communicate with A, though I met A nearly everyday. I ate lunch with A, go to library with A and brought A back to my room. So that was how my first year relationship with A, not much talking and communication, but still manage to maintain a fairly good relationship.

Apart from A, in my first year, I also met with E, another friend of mine. E was really very charming, always had a pleasant smile on the face. E's dressing was more retro. E liked the old British style of dressing up, so I always met E wondering if E was from another era. Despite E's weird old British style of dressing, E managed to catch my attention too. I was really attracted to E after my first conversation with E. E was very passionate about human behaviour and E's worldview really amazed me. I had a very pleasant and enjoyable intellectual discussion with E and I really thought that E was a very intelligent and ambitious person. So gradually, I began to shift my attention to E. As time passed on, my affection for E grew stronger and stronger, I felt really interested in E and I spent a lot of my time with E than with A. However, I didn't really mention to A about E. I just told A that I was getting busier as there were more works to do, so I had less and less time meeting A. A didn't mind me spending less time together, as long as I can accompany A and study together with A during exam period. A was very particular about exams, that's why A always wanted me to study together. While I was studying with A, I would always think about E, and wondering how good it would be if I had been able to spend more time with E.

However, I didn't really want the affairs to continue like this. I wanted to make up my mind and decide who I wanted to be with for the rest of my life. I was quite sure that I was no longer that interested in A. So I intended to break-off my relationship with A. Eventually, I told A about it and A was a bit sad, but I told A that I hope we could still be friends in time to come as I really learnt a lot from A. A taught me how to see things differently, though A couldn't express feeling well, A had a flair in analyzing complicated situations and summarizing them in a very useful and succinct ways. A taught me how to use sophisticated methods to summarize things and transform them into very useful information. I really owed A a lot and I can never thank A enough throughout the years. However, I knew that things cannot go on like this forever, I must make up my mind. I had chosen to dedicate my life to E.

After spending sometime with E, my interest in E grew even more, not less. E always fascinated me with E's broad knowledge of how the world works. E was also very passionate about poverty and had been pondering on the problem endlessly. I really like to discuss with E about these issues-- poverty, suffering, government policies, environment, human behaviour etc. I can spend my whole night talking with E without feeling tired-- I was really deeply in love with E. E's compassion about many social issues causes me to rethink about my own opinions and positions on these issues. I used to have a lot of unrealistic assumptions, biased views and baseless impressions about many social issues, but E, with patience, had always explained to me why my positions don't make sense. E's influence on me was profound, if there is one person that ever changes my stand on many issues, it must be E.

Currently, I'm still enjoying my relationship with E. I'm glad that I have found out who I really like and want to spend the rest of my life with. I'm so thankful that I have the opportunity to know E, who eventually becomes the most important person in my life. Of course, I'm also thankful to A and I expressed my heartfelt apology to A for my cheating.

Now, wanna know who is A and who is E
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Don't need to crack your head. A= actuarial science, E= economics, friends= my books & magazines

(Inspired from a joke by my friend, WX)

Religulous (2008)

This is a documentary movie by Bill Maher-- Religulous. He asks questions that people usually don't ask about their religion. Questions like : Why is faith good? Why suspending logically thinking and believing in something without real evidence is good? Why do you think your religion is the truth? Why still clinging on to a book written thousands years ago and looking for answers which can be found in modern physics, astrology, biology, psychology etc? Why believing in Jonah's story in the bible, of whom stayed in a big fish for 3 days and not the story of Pinochio, who also lived in a whale for 3 days Why god does not obliterate the devil now ? What is he waiting for?....etc

He asks questions, but he does not give the answers. He let you ponder upon them yourself, rationally and honestly. It is his journey of realisation and discovery, which in some ways or another, reflects mine too.

Disclaimer: For those
- who believe that bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
- who think that they cannot handle and tolerate questions or alternative views with an open mind,
- who think that this documentary is the deed of Satan who deliberately wants to confuse human beings,

then I would advise you against watching this movie!

Below is the link to the movie, enjoy!
http://www.supernovatube.com/play.php?viewkey=2bf4699ca1c062980545

Debunking myths about economics

Recently due to the ongoing, unresolved economic crisis, economists have been in the limelight. Many economists are caught in limbo, many come up with differing views and opinions with little consensus. However, this doesn't mean that economics itself is flawed, to understand why is this the case, we need to recognise the fact that economics is a study of the market's ongoing dynamics with different economic agents (businesses, government, consumer, institutions etc) reacting to different incentives. A government policy which originates from good intention to benefit the people, may end up jeopardising the economic development, resulting in more havoc and miseries. A government policy that aims to improve businesses and creates more jobs may end up stifles the private sectors, impedes the progress of economic recovery and therefore prolongs the economic crisis and creates more unemployment instead of increasing employment.


Having recognised this fact, when an economist talks about implementing a certain policy to cure the economy downturn, he will not be able to take into account all the interplay among different economic agents in an economy due to the following limitations:
- ever-changing interactions and dynamics-- a policy have to be implemented at the right timing to be the most effective
- unavailability of data-- lack of the latest data or indicators means that economist can only rely on the past data to draw conclusion or provide policy recommendation
- limited understanding of the economic structure-- as the economy progresses, economic structure of a country 10 years ago could be significantly different from now, for eg: 10 years ago, a country might have a significant portion of agricultural sector, but now, the country has transformed into a manufacturing-based economy, so a policy which was effective 10 years ago might not have the same impact now.


Due to the above limitations, an economist can only provide their policy recommendations based on the best information that they can get, but as new information comes in, they might change their views again. That's how economics works, because people are always reacting differently when new policy is introduced. High oil prices will change people's consumption choice, force them to travel by public transport, share their cars or travel less, but if the high oil price persists, businessmen will find ways to make cars more oil-efficient and less oil-dependent or come out with alternative energy solutions in which will bring down the demand for oil and keep the prices affordable, that's what makes economics forever so interesting.


The moral of the story is, to understand why economists provide different policy recommendations, we must first understand their underlying assumptions and evidence and assess their recommendations base on which one has more realistic assumptions. Therefore, a profound understanding of economics is definitely a must if you want to know which policy will likely to work and which one will do more harm than good to the economy, and not taking the words of the economists or policymakers on its face value. This level of critical thinking and assessment is what differentiates one who studies economics and one who doesn't.


Let's come back to current economic crisis. I believe people who are following the news, but with limited understanding of economics will have a hard time to follow what the economists are proposing. I believe following are a few questions that might arise while reading the recent news:


1. What are the tools available for the government to tackle the present economic crisis?

Ans: Generally, the textbook provides 2 solutions: monetary policy & fiscal policy


Monetary policy involves the use of interest rate to stimulate the economy. How it works? When the central bank lowers the lending interest rate, businesses will be able to borrow money more cheaply and not burdened by high interest payment, therefore, they will be able to expand their production capacity and produce more goods. For consumers, low interest rate discourage them from saving, they will tend to spend the money instead of saving it since saving it doesn't produce as much return in the future as compared to the satisfaction of spending it now. As the consumers spend their money, businesses will become more profitable and that brings the economy out of the recession.


Fiscal policy involves the use of government spending to stimulate the economy. Generally, during economic recession, private sector will be cutting costs, consumers will be saving more instead of spending, so government is the only economic agent who has the ability to spend. Therefore, government can increase spending so that the businesses will not suffer so severely from the economic downturn. Another way is to cut taxes and let the people have more money to spend. The spending by one person will create "multiplier effect"-- which means, when a consumer spends his money, the businessman's business will be more profitable, therefore, he can afford to employ more workers. The workers employed will then spend part of their salary and more businesses will benefit. This compounding effect of spending is called "multiplier effect". That is how fiscal policy works.


2. What are the limitations of monetary policy & fiscal policy?
For monetary policy, there is a limit to how much the central bank can cut the interest rate to stimulate the economy. The lowest the central bank can cut the interest rate is 0%, which is what the US central bank is doing right now. Their interest rate is now at 0%, yet the economy is still mired in recession and there is no sign of recovery in the near future, which means the monetary policy has loses its power of stimulating the economy.


For fiscal policy, if the government cuts taxes, the caveat is that people might save the tax cuts and not consume them. This will not create the "multiplier effect", and therefore, it might not work for an ailing economy like the US. Another reason why the economists oppose the "stimulus plan" is that, we all know public sector is often very inefficient, even involved with corruptions, especially when construction projects are being sublet to the private firms. Companies with political connection tend to be able to get a good deal from the bureaucrats. The higher the amount of the stimulus plan, the more the businessmen with political connections can suck away the resources to their own pockets.

Another reason, which is more specific to the US economy against implementing government stimulus plan is that the US government has already incurred a gigantic amount of debt. The US government does not save during good times, so they have nothing to fall back on during recession. The more the government spends today, the more needs to be repaid (including interest) in the future. There are only two ways the government can repay the debt -- increase taxes or reduce spending. Since there is "no free lunch", the US future generations thus could expect to pay a higher level of taxes. The more debt the US raised to fund their fiscal stimulus plan, the more fragile the economy becomes. This is why a lot of economists have been critical about the need to incur such a high debt to save some banks. It's not that fiscal policy doesn't work, it's because people have no trust in their government, which tends to be inefficient.

Hope my sharing can improve your understanding of the economic issues that are happening around the world!

As the economy falters, who is still smiling?

I saw this very interesting news. Would like to share with you here, hope you can have a good laugh after reading!

Forbes
Tuesday, 03 February 2009

Strippernomics

Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and "Girls Gone Wild" king Joe Francis facetiously asked Washington for a $5 billion stimulus package for the porn industry in early January. "Americans can do without cars," said Flynt. "They cannot do without sex."

Or at least a reasonable substitute. Strip clubs and other adult businesses are booming as the rest of the economy craters. Rick's Cabaret International, a nationwide chain of jiggle joints, reported that for fiscal 2008, revenue is up 87% to $60 million.

Rick's attracts 70,000 customers a month to its 19 clubs. At its New York spot alone Rick's posted just over $1 million in revenue in December. "The stimulus package has been very, very good to us," cracks Allan Priaulx, Rick's head of investor relations.

Francis Koenig, the goateed, 32-year-old chief executive of AdultVest, the first hedge fund for porn, reported a 50% rise in its returns last year, though he won't say how much or which ones delivered.

Koenig's funds, called Bacchus and Priapus, invest in gentlemen's clubs and companies that acquire them in the U.S. and Canada. AdultVest purchased strip club chain VCG Holding last May and recently bought iPorn.com, a site that hosts online dating and live video.

Amid all this froth, AdultFriendFinder, which owns Penthouse magazine and other adult brands, floated a $400 million IPO in December, though the ticker is not trading yet.

Not that skin trade stocks are on fire. Shares of adult oriented companies like Rick's and VCG Holdings are lagging. Others, like New Frontier Media, Playboy Enterprises and Private Media Group have been in the tank for months as Web porn offered by sites like AdultFriendFinder kill adult DVD sales and slam nails in the coffins of hide-bound adult magazines.

So how to account for the sex boom? Part of it is human psychology. Strip clubs and porn sites are about consumption and discrete gratification--typically the last kinds of behavior people change when their wallet thins. It's what makes Rick's a cash-rich company.

Rick's also thrives by its ability to re-brand on a dime. The Rick's club in Philadelphia saw its sales skid recently, prompting the company to re-name it Club Onyx, after another chain of strip clubs it owns aimed at celebrity sport stars and hip hop artists. The location is right: Onyx is within a mile of sports complexes where teams like the 76ers and Eagles play. According to Priaulx, the club has since tripled sales.

In Dallas, just down the street from the future site of the George Bush Library and Institute, Rick's has converted its latest club into another brand it owns: XTC Café. It is the largest all-nude strip club in the U.S. but does not serve booze. "I think our non-alcohol policy would make a certain former president very comfortable here," says Priaulx.

Food for thought

Another form of slavery..... by God

Today I joined a volunteering activity organized by Friends of Disabled Society. It was a social gathering for Chinese New Year celebration, attended by all the disabled friends. It was my first time joining such an activity.

It was truly an eye-opener event for me. I promise myself to join such activities every weekend if possible. The activity was held in a church, which is really very ironic and satirical, as the God once ordered that people with blemish should be forbidden from drawing near Him, for they may PROFANE His sanctuaries (direct quote), see how seriously the disabled people were once discriminated against. (You don't have to take my words, read Leviticus 21:17-24). Nevertheless, I'm relieved that human's wisdom and society's progress has led us to abandon these kinds of ridiculous laws.

I call disabled another form of slavery, but this kind of slavery is a bit different from the one I mentioned in my previous post. This form of slavery is not a result of what one man does to another man, it is a result of what the God (if there is one) does to a man.

I see many different kinds of disabled friends there, many of them sit on a wheelchair for various reasons: legs are amputated, muscular dystrophy, stroke, spastic, those who don't need to sit on a wheelchair, they suffer from mental illness, hands amputated etc. Some of them have very clear conscious, they know what they want, they know how they can get it, they know how to think clearly and rationally, they can speak very well, but they are entrapped by their physical bodies, their physical imperfections have enslaved them, forbidden them from reaching their dreams, living their normal lives and acquiring many basic necessities in lives.

I got the chance to help some of them to go to toilet. Before this, I have never pondered seriously how difficult it could be for a handicapped person to go to toilet to do his business. The proximity of the toilet doesn't make it easier for them, it only magnifies the difficulties that a handicapped faces. A mere action of unzipping or unbuttoning your pants, washing your hands, flushing the toilet bowl, putting your clothes together after doing the business... everything, every action that doesn't take me even a second to think about how to do it is a challenge for them, and these are only the very basic routines that you do in your everyday life, what about the bigger challenges in life like financial burden, making friends, finding life partner, finding a job etc that even physically sound people like you and I have difficulties to live up to those challenges?

Don't tell me this is a test of faith from God (please think carefully before you say this). Don't tell me this is a punishment from God (I don't think I'm more righteous than them). Don't tell me they will be rewarded for their suffers in the after-life (so are you telling me just leave them alone, since they ought to suffer to receive the rewards?) I seriously don't know how you can repeatingly telling me that your God is an all-loving God in the presence of all these people.

Ok, some of you may say Jesus did heal the disabled in the New Testament, so the God did do something about the sufferings, He did heal them. However, please think carefully, who made them handicapped in the first place? Who created them with genetical deformities? Who created hundreds and thousands of viruses and bacteria and let these micro-organisms breed and spread rampantly in the first place (If according to the Creation theory)? It's your God, the Mighty Creator. He creates the problem, sure He knows how to solve it and He ought to solve it. It's like the global warming, which is created by human activities and therefore, human ought to and have the obligation to solve it together. We created the problem, and we should shoulder the responsibility to solve it, there's nothing so good and loving about solving the problem that we have created on our own. We don't deserve to be praised for solving the problem that we have created, why a different standard when it comes to your God?