"Good Bye Ladies...

Sorry Ladies, I'm now taken by the most beautiful princess in the world. She is so hot, that she is even hotter than I am. I think that is good in a relationship. The girl should be the prettier one, or else she'll feel insecure. I'm usually the prettier one. It's been a long and hard search, but this prince is now taken.

asianprince213@yahoo.com

Does anyone want the pictures and html code to my sexy site? Just e-mail me.

My online diary

Be sure to check out Il Superficiale, they are hosting my old site!

Also, check out www.thenoel.org, they too are hosting my old site!"

Noooooooooooo! I want Tuan Anh updates...

Laudatory review: "Hello Ladies... (The Asian Prince)

He's a musical genius in search of a Princess to take to the backseat of his heavily modified van. He's an excellent lover, likes to live dangerously, has a lot of money, and is generally regarded as a bad ass. He can also vibrate his hand (listen to the recording if you doubt me).

I think this site is fake; the main page says the guy's name is Wo-Hen Nankan, which sounds like "I am very ugly" in Chinese. After a little research, I found that the pictures are of a Vietnamese singer called Tuan Anh."

Assorted thoughts from today:

I saw a bus with those stupid Army ads today. "Who has the firepower?". Bah. I should spoof them. One might read: "Who has insufficient firepower?" and show an AMX-13 beside an M1A2 Abrams or T-90. Another might read: "Who implements mindless regimentation?" and show corporals marching to their cookhouse. A third might be tagged: "Who wastes your time?", with a picture of men doing area cleaning.

I think the Holland Village NYDC's mudpies are smaller now than last time. Evil! Evil!

I saw Crystal walking in Holland Village with what I thought was her friend. It turned out to be her mother. Her world famous funky mum!

The staff on the DBS helpline are very helpful and friendly, but their voices are sickly sweet!

The 'minestrone' soup that our cookhouse gives us gets more and more disgusting by the week. Now, it has loads of chili and noodles, and a gooey texture reminiscent of toxic sludge. The lumps in it don't make it any more palatable, either. Ban xiong pronounces it 'faeces gone wrong'.

Before leaving for his medical appointment, Wang was presented with his gift - an action figure of Gollum from Lord of The Rings, which hisses "My precious" when you press a button. Hee hee hee. 15 of us chipped in to buy it for him (speaking of which, many haven't paid yet!). "Why did you buy me this? I don't look like Gollum". Someone suggested later that we could make a doll of Kiong which would make the Kiong noise when its button was touched, and it would sell like hot cakes :)



Image courtesy of Junxiong

So many people are ORDing - this time, the earlier JC batch. The winds of change blow yet again.

I saw a poster at Serval - "Traditional Chinese word. 'Listening' - Ear + yeyes + king + one heart. One listens with his eyes, ears and heart as if listening to the king." Right. Point? Just because the ancient Chinese thought something does not mean that we should follow it. For example, the original pictogram for a woman showed the woman bowing and servile. Later she changed to a kneeling position and the modern character has the woman strutting confidently. Also, the one pictogram representing a politician supposedly shows a fat man sleeping inside a building.

On Jonathan's recommendation, I tried black socks. They're not bad - a little softer than the green socks, so I've taken to wearing them instead. Yeh. A sign of individuality (as far as that's possible) and rebellion (for what that's worth)!

We had contact sparring during Unarmed Combat, and this time everyone had to take their turn at it. Since there was no one within 30kg of my weight (supposedly), the instructor sent 2 people at me! They kept coming at me, and I had no time to retaliate, cornered, surrounded and overwhelmed as I was. Despite my allegedly comical attempts to fend off blows, I was struck repeatedly - where I had no padding, beaten to a pulp and at the end, staggering after the momentum of a few incoming kicks, toppled and rolled over, coming to rest on my stomach. I still have my internal injuries at my left thigh and left shoulder areas.


We were having a little wrestling session in bunk during commercials for the Duke of Mount Deer 2000, and I decided to join in. Not unexpectedly, I was the person who made all the difference by pinning people down, and Melvin and Yong Siang were, in turn, trapped beneath me while the other tickled or otherwise abused them.

Later, Yong Siang went to bathe, so Melvin, Andrew and I hatched a dewious (sic) plot. I suggested that, since he likes powder so much, we should give him a powder bath. So we took 3 packets of SAF powder - cast aside by all in favour of the vile Prickly Heat or, in Yong Siang's case, 'Holiday On Ice', and filled a container with them. We decided to ambush him in the toilet because it would be easy to clean the powder up (later experience proved us wrong). I then went to wait in the cubicle beside the one Yong Siang was bathing in, and Andrew and Melvin waited outside to hold him while I crept up behind. Or at least that was the plan; in my excitement, I stood in the antechamber of the shower cubicle. After an interminable wait, I decided to peek underneath the wall separating the cubicles to see what was holding Yong Siang up - only to see him staring back at me! Laughing, I exited the cubicle to confer with the other two, while Yong Siang peeked out of his cubicle, half soaped, and tried to find out what we were planning. We went outside and closed to toilet door, planning to throw the powder in his face when he opened it, as he was the only one in the toilet. Someone suggested that he wasn't so dumb, so I decided to wait behind a wall and throw it in his face. Only, when we opened the door, Yong Siang said that he'd seen what I was caring. Scrapping our carefully plotted plans, I just threw the powder on him, and over the door lintel of his the shower cubicle when he retreated back in. The three of us then ran out of the toilet like the wind, leaving a bewildered broom-holding Mark, who had come in to talk to Andrew, behind. Mark was then attacked by Yong Siang, over his futile protests that he was an innocent bystander.


Misleading naming: "Pulpy C" by Pokka has no pulp in it at all. Evil! Evil!

My forum letter got rejected (again!), but I'm still happy because 2 better letters got in. I think I really must try to curb my verbose instincts and get to the point succinctly, in order to tweak the noses of idiots.

Some doctor revisited the "NS for women" debate by suggesting that women train medically after JC. Right. So they're only good for nursing - is that what he's trying to say?

The Fish & Co at Jurong Point gives a blasphemously little amount of lemon butter with their Seafood Platters for Two. Gah!


Quotes:

[Me on psychiatric cases: Why do we have so many 'P' cases? Can I become a 'P' case also?] I also want to be a 'P' case. I'm sick and tired of this place.

[On SARS] If you go out you'll see some people jogging in masks. That's quite freaky.

[Powerplant slide on SARS] My gf is [a] nurse at TTSH, should I dump her?

[On SARS paranoia] Don't drag your friend down to the medical centre to report sick. You don't want to know what I'll do to you.

[On his slides] On the right you see 2 surgeons decked out in hip 3M masks.

If you decide to chew on your oral thermometer, you will swallow your mercury

Of course you can go to your friendly neighbourhood clinic

[Powerpoint slide on home quarantine] Webcams issued - smile at the camera

There's no need to avoid karaoke girls, right, but I'm not endorsing it.

[On SARS] Now is a bad time to be a medic right.

Tell me, which malay doesn't smoke? Which malay male doesn't smoke?

[On the 'remarks' column] If the fucking food is fucked up, write down there - 'the food is fucked up'

[On being beaten up during UC] If I were you I'd go and sit on him and give him one tight slap... I don't care

[On Yaodong running] I hope he gets caught for not wearing his shirt

Yay.

I got my toys today, from the shop that Nigel recommended me.

Canon Powershot A70 - $509 (w/o GST) [Advertised price - $599]
Canon Powershot A70 with 128MB CompactFlash card and soft black case - $649 (w GST) [Apparently a 128MB CF card costs only $70, so I got cheated. Grr. No wonder I'm told people don't like ABNN shops. "never deal with *******. bloody cheats" - censored in the interests of "racial harmony", though if a statement is true, it should be allowed to be proclaimed far and wide: eg Chinese have beige skin]

4 x rechargeable AA batteries with charger - $38 (I was told this wasn't a good price, but I figured the trouble of getting them elsewhere outweighed the price overhead)

Benq External CDRW Drive - $198 (w/o GST)

Sum: $892. I feel poor. I tried to bargain and indeed showed more spunk than normally, but they were insistent. I must concede that their basic prices *are* good. They were also selling CDRs at 10 for $10, but apparently that's not cheap, so.

Unfortunately, the CDRW drive and the Motorola Surfboard modem don't seem to get along well. Oh well, CD burning is best done without any interruptions anyway. I'd lend the drive out freely, but it seems everyone and their dog already has one!

I thought I would be the only one using an external drive, but I found out that Christie uses one too. Haha.

Incidentally, I hear Iomega CDRW drives suck. They're expensive and are very likely to turn out coasters.

Both the things interface vis USB, so now I'm short of 2 USB slots!


11:02PM

Gah. Try as I might, I cannot get the wretched camera to connect to my computer. It won't even be recognised! :(

I guess I'll try again when I next book out.

Lala.

Toh Ah Beng 'Classic', by Melvin



Toh Ah Beng with a Stereo, modified by Boon Wei



Re-rendered Toh Ah Beng with a Stereo scratching his crotch, by Boon Wei



A grotesque, failed attempt to caricature me by Guoquan

I found "Osama" brand 5m measuring tape in the Medical Centre. Wth.

These days, I've been seeing men jogging topless - but for a black strap below their breast. A male version of the sports bra?

I was at Orchard Hotel's Coffee House at lunch, and there were prawns in the Vegetarian Corner. The cook was quite embarassed. Tut tut.

eatmejusteatme (emjem) has disappeared! Oh no.


More billboards:








Google Groups: View Thread - Why Phoenix is wrong in having spartan preferences

Bookshelf in the shape of a man

Sixth-grader who stomped in puddle arrested

Assorted jumbled thoughts on religion through the week:

Just why are we supposed to follow all the rules that this God has supposedly laid out? Do we have any obligation to do so in the first place? A common argument cited is that our compliance is a matter of free will, but then this isn't strictly true, because the price of disobedience is eternal torment, so it is not a choice made out of free will, but under duress. However, this does not address the issue of *why* this God wants us to do certain things. Does he want to control us, to order our lives? Is his instinct to control so strong that he condemns all those who refuse to be slaves to him to eternal torment? Children who disobey their parents may not get a new Playstation 2 (or X-box, if you prefer), but their parents certainly don't cut off their food supply or throw them onto the streets.

This God's divine plan is commonly cited, in an effort to stop us questioning his supposed benevolence. If children are eviscerated in gory accidents that He could have easily prevented, we are told that it is part of his divine plan. However, if all has been determined, why the need to pray? Since this God knows what is going to happen, and has a plan for what is to happen, who are we to pray for World Peace, when it will never come unless He wants it? Since He is assumed to be able to see into the future and into the past, he already knows what is going to happen and this cannot change - which raises more questions about the imprudent decisions made by this God which, with his foresight, he should have avoided, like why he created Man knowing that he'd damn himself, and why he tempted Adam and Eve by telling them about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil even though he knew they'd eat from it.

"Experiences" are an integral part of the religious experience, to show adherents the power of their God. However, why do these experiences seem to be available for so many religions? Does that mean that all of their Gods have power? Heck, even atheists or agnostics have weird dreams, or Out Of Body Experiences. People with brain damage are also known to have experienced strange and wonderful sensations. Do these experiences come from this God, then?

My essay is targeted at a general audience, those who have never questioned their faith (or lack thereof) much, not at those with degrees in theology or divinity. If you're well read, you might not find much new here, though I think I did come up with some small insights.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" - Carl Sagan. Why, then, do people drop the standards of proof for religion? Is it because they are misty eyed for the rewards of the afterlife, and drop any prudent objections that might be made? Why is the instinct to question suddenly muffled when the issue of religion comes up? Perhaps people do not *dare* to venture there, for it is where even Angels fear to tread. Maybe I should start my own cult, with me as the God. I can do as much (the power of hypnotherapy and demagoguery), and at least I don't require adherence to an outdated moral code.

If this God is there, and he is so good, why is that that more people do not recognise and see him? Why does he hide himself so much, and make himself out to be imperfect? Why is it that people find him imperfect? Surely, if he is the epitome of perfection, none of his flaws would be glimpsed, and his perfection and goodness would be as obvious as the sum of 1 and 1 being 2. On the contrary, an objective analysis of the evidence - without prior prejudices, preconceptions or assumptions, reveals that this God is, at best, indifferent to us, if he does exist. For every miracle, there is a tragedy, for every uplifting moment, a period of depression and despair and for every improbable fortuitous coincidence, an unbelievable spate of bad luck.

In the Bible, God is recorded to have shown his power freely, but it seems that in recent years he has become less powerful now. In 1 Kings 18:17-40, Elijah invoked him to set a pile of wet wood ablaze, to show that Baal was a false God. [NB: What happened to "free will" here, then, since he showed the priests of Baal his unmistakable power?]. Or how about the Fish and Loaves, which fed hundreds (though, strangely enough, none of these hundreds recorded this miracle independently)? What gives? Why is it that major, incontestable shows of his power are not visible nowadays? Many claim to have seen "signs" from him - but what makes them so sure that these "signs" were not natural occurences, or figments of their imagination? I can claim that this God gave me a sign that I was to massacre all the blondes in the world, but would this claim hold water? Perhaps if fiery words were written in the sky in front of millions, but what if the "sign" came in the form of a divine conviction that I found?

It seems that the more successful religions play on people's guilt, despair, hope and naivete (in suitable proportions, of course)

Some statistics show that there are 850 million agnostics/atheists - it is the fourth largest "religion" in the world (and that doesn't count statutory theists who are de facto agnostics/atheists). Perhaps it is this God's plan that so many do not know him, since many of these 850 million gave him a chance, but found nothing.

People say that God is Good, and we can see it from what he does. However, this begs the question of the definition of "good". Is God good because he does good things (which then subjects him to an external moral law, just as we all supposedly are subject to his), or are the things he does defined as good? But then if this God advocated murder, rape, arson, killing of hermaphrodites and 8 month old fetuses and the like, would we then say these things were good? [Note: Saying that he wouldn't define these things as good is *not* an acceptable counter. I could also say that he wouldn't define homosexuality to be bad.] And you wonder why I hate meta-physics.

The notion of sin and redemption is questionable. Why can't this God simply forgive everyone and not send them to eternal torment, if he is so good, vast and benevolent. The reparte is that he loved us so much that he sent his son as a "sacrifice", but then it seems he sacrificed a part of himself - to himself, for he is the one who determines, by setting the criteria, whether someone goes to heaven or to hell. The analogy is that someone takes away $10 from you, gives you $1 back, and tells you that you're supposed to be happy.

Why does God not send his missionaries to the heart of Africa, then? Does he want to condemn more people to hell?

There are many more troubling points of doctrine but I try not to address them here because I don't want to steal too much and want original (or at least independently arrived-at) content. Please visit some of the sites below for more pressing questions.

Atheists are often asked to prove that there is no God, and since it is hard to do so (and the proofs are contentious), theists claim that this God does exist. However, If I were to claim that malign silicon based lifeforms lay under the surface of Pluto, and that since no one could disprove me, I was correct, I would be laughed out of the room, since though my assertion would be impossible to prove, there would be no evidence backing me up. Similarly, the burden of proof should be on the theists, for the default state is that there is no God, so the prosecution has to prove its case instead of the defence; what theists currently do is akin to judging people guilty until proven innocent.

Interesting material on Catholics' conservatism regarding reproduction from http://www.uctaa.org/Essays/meditations/med015.html: "I do not personally accept this morality - particular with respect to women's reproductive issues. In fact, the Catholic Church's teachings on this matter only date back to 1869 and Pope Pius IX. Along with his declaration of papal infallibility, and his approval of the doctrine of immaculate conception, he declared that human life began at conception. In my view, absolutely wrong on all three issues.

In fact, if we go back 2000 years - it was believed at the time when Christ was supposed to have been born that life began a full week AFTER birth - at circumcision. And this was the traditional Jewish belief - and was the Christian belief for hundreds of years after. As evidence, I point to the calendar. Why - if it is based on the birth of Christ - is the birth date set at 25 December? Because the calendar is not based on the birth of Christ - it is based on the date of circumcision - exactly one week later which is 1 January. And to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on the issue of the Feast of Circumcision "He was, as St. Paul says, 'made under the law'". Under the law as it was at that time that's when he was made - or became accepted as part of the human race."

Personally I think that abortion is bad and should be avoided as much as possible, but in many cases it is necessary to avoid greater sorrow. Abortion is not really murder per se unless the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb by itself, for until then it is a parasite, leeching off the mother. It is doubtful whether a fetus, especially in its early stages of development, is even sentient. Simply put, a potential person is not a person.

Countless anecdotes abound of how people have tried to search for this God, but somehow, he has ignored them. Could it be part of his divine plan, then? Perhaps - just like Ebola.

Some people argue against drugs because they create dependence. Doesn't religion create a dependence? Just like love?

Why is it acceptable, in many modern societies, to discriminate against peopel based on their sexual orientation? Race, language, gender, religion are mostly unacceptable bases, but somehow treating gays differently is alright. Hell, it's harder to change your sexual orientation than your religion.

Implications of Perfection submitted by Sphere

If God is perfect then God cannot change.
If God cannot change then God cannot interact with the rest of existence.
If God cannot interact with the rest of existence then there is no way we can ever interact with God.
If we cannot interact with God then we can never know anything about God.
If we can never know anything about God we can treat God as non-existent from our viewpoint.
http://www.uctaa.org/Essays/meditations/med035.html

"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon Bonaparte. Is it any surprise that the world as we know it seems to function as it would even without a God?

I think that encouraging conservativism in sexual life is bad. A healthy physical relationship is part and parcel of any vibrant marriage, and straitjacketing yourself with outmoded practices is a recipe for disaster.

God is supposed to not be overt in his attempts to search for and touch us because he grants us free will. However, what about those looking for him (and not finding)? It is more like stumbling blindly in the dark. It's not that they don't want to find this God, but that they cannot find him.

I personally find the idea of the Greek and Roman Gods more appealing. For one, they had human flaws and were imperfect, thus reflecting the imperfection of our world and of life - much more believable, on the whole. Worship was on a strictly contractual basis - you sacrificed to Zeus and he struck your enemy with lightning. You could choose not to believe in them, and they would not blame you for it.

The intellectual dishonesty of many Christians is rather infuriating. They purport to want to debate, but then they define the parameters such that their flawed conclusions inevitably follow, and when I question the assumptions, they ignore me. Grr.

Miracles:
How about 'magic'? Here, I refer not to cheap parlour tricks, but to seemingly incedulous feats, like those performed by David Copperfield. Surely going through the Great Wall of China, making the Statue of Liberty disppear and flying could not be pulled off with mere sleight of hand? And I think no one in his right mind would accuse magicians of being aided by the Devil, so it must be illusion. If even something like "flying" is achievable, mere tongues pale in comparison.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

One argument for God's existence is that if he hadn't set the scientific constants of the Universe to the value that they are, and hadn't created the conditions on this earth for us to arise, we never would have existed, and so we know he exists. This reasonable sounding proposition actually has it the wrong way around. Consider what happens if there is no God and the scientific constants and conditions are wrong - life as we know it would not have evolved. The very fact that we are around to ponder the existence of God shows that, somehow, all the conditions were right for us to arise.

Alternatively, our existence could have been a matter of chance. Most people would say it is impossible for a fair coin flipped 100 times to come up heads each time, but this truly is possible according to the laws of probability. Just because something is improbable does not mean that it is impossible. Just consider how many planets there are in the Universe - 100 billion galaxies alone are visible to modern telescopes, and the true total is likely much higher. In each galaxy, there are hundreds of billions of stars. Even assuming a one in a million chance of a star system having a planet, and each star system having one and only one planet, one can calculate that there are at least 10,000,000,000,000,000 (Ten million, billion) planets in the universe. It would be sheer arrogance to proclaim that life could not have evolved on other planets - and our conception of "life" is of carbon-based, water consuming life. Who's to say that other forms of life - crystalline or sillicoid, say, could not have evolved? The same logic can apply for multiple or parallel Universes.

The Ten Commandments are commonly held to be a clear guideline for believers. However, this God himself seems to have compelled his faithful to break many of them.

The Church's opposition to birth control and abortion has serious implications. Its opposition to condoms and the Pill means that women have no control over their reproductive systems; the Rhythm Method is famous for its inaccuracy, and anyhow it violates the spirit of the prohibition of birth control. Worse, not allowing men to use condoms means that Sexually Transmitted Diseases infect and kill more people, especially in Third World countries. And on abortion - how about rape victims, or mothers who have AIDS and don't want their children to be born as one of the living dead, with parents who will soon die and be unable to care for them? Some statistics show, too, that the risk of a woman dying from an abortion is lower than that of her dying in childbirth. Something to think about, indeed. Lastly, the evidence against abortion in the Bible is tenuous as best, according to one insightful explanation: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

The Catholic Church expounds on how we should live our lives, but hasn't its moral high ground been eroded over the ages? Besides the atrocities it has committed in God's name, it has had many corrupt, debauched Popes, not to mention the current spate of child abuse by paedophilic priests and Pius XII's collaboration with the Nazis.

I suspect that, if there is a God, he'd be amused at what everyone is trying to do for him, each claiming that only their way is correct.

It seems most people who become disillusioned with religion come up with the same few points. Maybe it's because these points are valid, forceful and ring true :)

The danger with being obsessed with eradicating sin is that the person tries hard to look for sin everywhere. Thus, everything becomes a sin, and he is trapped in a vicious circle. The more he purges his perceived sin, the more obsessed he becomes and he tries to wring yet more 'sin' from his life.

Which sort of good God would allow children to be born spastic?


Someone: "how shall i put it - it's easy to be sceptical and to draw a lot of hedonistic, 21st-century materialist kids / adolescents into a diatribe of "religion of bullshit".

sitting down and trying to figure out an alternative and what it all means is a lot harder - and a lot more mature."

Me: "that's true - inasmuch as it is easier to just tear down religion

but just because something is hard doesn't mean it should be done

morality can come from humans, and not from God
I do recognise that that is a valid question
but the mechanics of fusion power are valid too! (and infinitely more useful)
you don't see me rushing to solve that problem. it's a lack of both aptitude and interest

here I lack mostly interest in the morality issue"

Hah! We actually made it.

Top 100 April Fool's Day Jokes Of All Time

#64: Y2K Solved
In 1999 the Singapore Straits Times reported that a 17-year-old high school student had one-upped all the major software corporations of the world by creating a small computer program that would easily solve the Y2K bug. The camera-shy C student had supposedly devised the program in twenty-nine minutes while solving an algebra problem for his homework. His family and a technology consulting group were reportedly forming a joint venture named 'Polo Flair' in order to commercialize the discovery. They anticipated achieving revenues of $50 million by the end of the year. Numerous journalists and computer specialists contacted the Straits Times, seeking more information about the boy genius and his Y2K cure. One journalist even wanted to know if the boy would be willing to appear on TV, despite the fact that he was camera shy. Unfortunately the boy and his ingenious program didn't exist. Quick-witted readers would have noticed that 'Polo Flair' was an anagram for 'April Fool.'

After a long hiatus, I present these referrals without (much) comment:

zhuang yisa - He seems popular

flat mental nude lolita photos - ???

schoolgirl pinafore boys fetish

children's disgusting song lyrics

"chinese high" secondary 4 boy died - He did?

harmful effects of instant noodles - Supposedly they make your hair drop

"the worst school uniform" - River Valley, no doubt!

donation for a place in acjc - Well.

fruit feces week "hong kong" delicacy - !!!

japanese hentai game review invisible rape sister
+hentai +"turn based" +college +sex +download - They've some strange games out there

my name is kairen and i like britney spears - He says he does. Argh.

hot girls personal homepage (main site)

rgs raffles bondage

free hamtaro porn pics - Bestiality?! Argh.

rgs ankle socks

geraldine blogspot rjc - She's popular eh.

mt sinai sluts - Surely not Henry Park. So it must be RJ again!

alma mater chio rgs

ball point pen art by malay Singapore

Amid the millions of letters on SARS, some interesting ones on animal cruelty:

No cruelty in shark harvest

NOT all sharks are threatened with extinction. In fact, only two rare species are. Also, it is not true that cruel treatment is meted out when the fins are harvested.

At the 12th Meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) held in Santiago, Chile, from Nov 3-15 last year, it was stated that sharks, by and large, are not endangered with the exception of two - the whale shark (Rhincodin typus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) - included in Citses Appendix II which came into effect on Feb 13 in Singapore.

As far as our association is aware, these two species of sharks are hardly traded in Singapore. So there is no justification to raise a hue and cry about eating sharks' fin in Singapore. Sharks are often hauled in by a tuna/sword-fish fishing fleet and the normal method used by fishermen is to electrocute them with an electric rod if they are still alive before harvesting the fins and cleaning the stomach, then freezing them.

The major portion of meat is a valuable commercial product. It is stored in a huge refrigerator and is never discarded or thrown into the sea as alleged.

DANNY YIO
President
Singapore Marine and Land Products Association


Chickens suffer more than foie gras ducks

I HAVE followed with interest, but also a certain feeling of unfairness, recent letters to the Forum about foie gras (duck liver).

Ducks raised to produce duck liver (and magret, and leg confit) are over-fed (not by pump, air guns) for the last 12 days of their lives.

It is pure fantasy to describe their lives as an ordeal. Those poultry live in small farms, outside, and are treated in the best manner possible. Stress and mistreatment ruin the finished product.

The last few days of their lives are, however, not the most comfortable.

Pinpointing those ducks is extremely unfair. Comparing them to endangered species is dishonest. Naming the countries that are banning them is laughable: in those countries, millions of people eat in fast-food outlets every day.

Have you read anything about chickens, for example? They spend their 40-day short lives in a cage, they cannot move, their bones often break from sickness and weakness, they are fed with flour made of bones and unusable parts of chickens (it is called cannibalism), lowest-cost supplements and antibiotics, their beaks are cut so they do not harm themselves (tells you a lot about the mental health of the birds).

A scientist is currently proposing a genetically modified featherless chicken, easier to process. A lot more misery can be described.

We can agree that thousands of ducks have a rough time at the end of their lives. But before hitting on that industry, perhaps we should bring some attention to the billions of chickens whose short stay on earth is a constant torture.

PHILIPPE VO
Director
Classic Fine Foods Pte Ltd Singapore


All very reasonable sounding, but written by people with vested interests. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, though.


In contrast, this one pissed me off. Maybe I will finally get down to writing in:

Seeing red over new censorship proposals

I STRONGLY object to the new censorship rules proposed by the Censorship Review Committee.

Firstly, by allowing some previously banned materials or shows in, we are compromising our moral standards. This has serious implications for the values younger Singaporeans (including myself) will grow up with.

I respect the panel of academics, journalists, professionals and artists who are taking the trouble to review the censorship rules and proposing changes they see as liberating for a society like Singapore.

However, I would like to challenge the way such decisions were made. Were community groups consulted? How did the panel arrive at its proposed changes?

A society is shaped by popular culture. What kind of values are we suggesting to our young people if we allow racier shows like Sex In The City to air on television? It may have won an Emmy but the values that come across at the end of each episode are less than desireable.

I also want to question how the Censorship Review Committee is going to deal with shows that explicitly exploit images of women. I believe many shows that were censored are shows dealing with female nudity or themes relating to female sexuality.

How are we to ensure that Singaporean women's image will not be compromised by Western definitions?

Singaporean women have already been caught in so many debates regarding their sexuality. We do not need popular media to blatantly play out on a greater scale what men want to see in their fantasies.

[Name removed at the writer's request on 26/02/04]


The last mail pissed me off so much, I sent in a reply.

My sister says it's too ideological, and that I've to be more dispassionate. Everyone else says it's good, though I'm sure The Associate would have much to say!

Let's see if it's rejected, or how horribly mutilated it is if it's accepted :0

[Ed: This is the text of the letter I sent in:

'I refer to the letter "Seeing red over new censorship proposals", published in the Forum on Saturday, April 19th.

*** appears to be distressed over the proposed relaxing of censorship rules, and I am certain many Singaporeans are lamenting our declining moral standards.

However, just who defines these nebulous moral standards? Beyond certain broadly defined universal constants, like "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not lie" and the like, it is hard to find morals which all societies uphold. What is one man's meat is another man's poison - the Amish and the Taliban, for example, thought the naked ankles of women to be as immoral as most of us think the naked bosoms are. Morals change with time, too - just as most people today think both polygyny and polyandry 'immoral' and unjustified, our great grandparents would have viewed the increasingly risque beer posters with more than mild displeasure. Besides, it seems that the moral standards in Singapore, at least as far as movies are concerned, are that the mere flash of a nipple is deemed unsavoury, but it is perfectly fine for strapping males to gun down everyone in a room.

She also wonders what will happen to the young, who are vulnerable to influences. Regulators in more liberal countries have also pondered this, which is why attempts are made to restrict the young and impressionable from being influenced. For example, more explicit television shows are only permitted to be screened on television at late hours, when parents will likely be at home, parental locks are built into most televisions, and the viewing of pornography is restricted to those above 18. In any case, Singaporean youth are immsensely resourceful and curious, especially when it comes to the Internet. Does anyone have any illusions about what most young boys (and not a few young girls) laugh or giggle about during their whispered conversations? It is said that Forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter, especially to impetuous youth, so by imposing a blanket ban on everything some of us consider "undesirable", we are actually increasing their appeal. At the end of the day, it is up to parents to teach their children about the birds and the bees, but sadly most do not, leading them to seek out alternative sources and be "corrupted" (if you like).

Lastly, she is concerned about the image of women. However, the very show she reviles, Sex and the City, is about female empowerment. These women do not depend on men like Ally McBeal, but are financially and emotionally independent. Whatever men can do, they can do better.

Censorship in Singapore is justified by claiming that it reflects the views of a majority of Singaporeans. What if a majority of Singaporeans got it into their heads that bandanas should be banned as they are unsanitary? Would Singapore then outlaw it? I think not, for why should the majority be allowed to impinge on the freedom of a minority when the minority is not causing any trouble for others?

John Stuart Mill famously pronounced that, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". The idea of censorship - of stopping mature adults from being exposed to new ideas because it's "not good for them" or society "disapproves", smacks of unreasoned, unjustified repression, and shows that the Powers That Be do not trust their own citizens, and condescend to blindfold them. Censors can not and should not be babysitters for mature adults. Besides, there is the problem of enforcement - does anybody doubt the availability of obscene VCDs in Singapore today? For a sobering lesson on the unfeasibility of puritanism, just look at the disaster that was Prohibition in the 1920s.

Simply, if you're offended by something, you can choose not to view it. Just as nobody is forcing you to watch the latest R(A) movie, nobody will be forcing you to watch 'Sex and the City' if you do not want to. If we can restrict the consumption of currently censored material to adults above 18 and keep its advertising subtle, as with R(A) movies presently, there is simply no reason why mature adults should be restricted from watching what they want. Ultimately, we cannot and should not try to impose our subjective "moral standards" on other people, for as the Golden Rule says - "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you". Sadly, I do not think that Singaporeans are mature enough to accept greater freedom, so we will continue to have to let the vocal minority dictate what we should be able to watch. Nevertheless, I applaud the newly proposed guidelines on censorship, as they are a step forward in the right direction for a maturing nation.'

Added 26/02/04]

So the time to change my blogskin has come.

Most skins on Blogskins.com suck. They're either too gaudy (maystar's skins), too garish, too similar looking, too bloated, or all of the above.

I like simplicity in itself, and so it has become the new skin :)

One night, we were in the bunk when Mark came from next door and flicked a large grasshopper into our bunk with a piece of newspaper. I was inclined to kill it, but the rest (with the strange affection for animals that takes most males when they aren't torturing them) were disinclined, so Jason whisked it out of the door. I then took a broom and swept it - under the door of Mark's bunk - and scurried back to our bunk giggling. A while later, Mark came back with the grasshopper on the piece of newspaper, but we shouted at him not to do anything. He then went to the drivers' bunk and flicked it into there, then ran back to his bunk. I was going to go help them remove the grasshopper from their bunk, but the lights were off. The next day, we saw the giant grasshopper perched on the ceiling outside the drivers' bunk.

I've decided that those people who call me "Jiabao" will get one of a variety of unsavoury names, like "George", "Cesspit" and the like. Time to put this plan into action!

Since our bedsheets and pillowcases are being counted, we've brought in our own. It feels more like home now :)

I've printed out and scanned in some of the products of people's boredom when they are in the Treatment Room. Like that of Ah Beng carrying the stereo (someone pointed out that no one carries stereos around, and someone else said mats do that because it is cheaper and it looks "cool". Heh. I think they carry them so they can put then on the floor and breakdance!) And that of me (which looks horrible). Enjoy :) People's skills at Paintbrush (Windows 3.1 version) steadily increase with practice, and we daily discover things we never knew Paintbrush could do. A pity almost no one recognised the significance of the Zerowing dialogue, though.

I finally got down to writing "Sucks Bigtime" under the word "Army" printed in bold on one of my Army singlets. Yeh.

In one room, I found "Osama" brand 5m power tape (meauring tape). Wth?!

Yong Siang thought that Asian Prince was the same as Amy Jo Johnson, since both of them feature on my cupboard. Gah!!!

Ban Xiong has an amazing appetite for Crystal Jade's Xiaolongbao. Even I would eat only two, but he ordered 2 baskets on tuesday, so we each had 4. They are nice, though, as is the la mian :)

Apparently sometimes Kiong goes home to sleep on his nights off. Wah.

Someone wrote in to the forum to suggest that, during the SARS epidemic, SAF servicemen get stayout. Fine idea!

To save money, manpower and time, we now get food on weekends from the Muslim cookhouse. Dammit, I hate Malay food!

People love to keep the television on in the bunk, even when no one is watching it, a fact I discovered when I turned it off one night, to howls of protest. Apparently they have been weaned on a diet of background noise, and are unable to enjoy the Sound of Silence.

We had our first company run where we had to sing - ugh. Well, I was covering, but still, the noise brought back bad memories.

There was this colourful newsletter with absolutely no sensitive material in it at all pinned on a noticeboard, but it was rated "restricted". Wth.

Our 42SAR canteen's food stall - "All Ranks Canteen", has closed. I got a tip off from the mua chee man at 46SAR one day, and he said that they'd closed as they couldn'tp ay the rent. Later, I asked the people drinks stall, and they said that the people at the food stall had said they were going to "rest", and that they weren't allowed to sell any food. A few days later, while having a haircut, I asked the barber, who was quite close to the people at the food stall, and he corroborated what the mua chee man said. They indeed couldn't make any money. Feeling a little sorry for him (he had helped the food stall wash dishes for food, apparently), I gave him $2 this time (and besides, he did put in some effort this time round). The people at "All Ranks Canteen" might not have cooked very good food, but it *was* an additional place to go to, especially if, as it did once, the cookhouse cooked laksa (and only laksa) for dinner, and they were quite nice too, letting people buy food on credit. The auntie never did manage to con me into buying 3 chicken wings for $2 at 4pm, though, despire numerous efforts.


I saw a perfect birthday present for Wang. He's going to get it next week. Heh heh heh.


Things you learn: Beethoven's Ode to Joy is the European Union's official anthem.

The 'House of Humour' in Jurong Point has no humourous stuff, only screwed up stuff. What a misleading name!

I saw Lu Rui En [Ed: For the uninitiated, she is the ex-RJ student 1 year my senior who featured in the Singtel pod ad who meets a guy in a club and gives him her number, and has now forayed into Chinese pop] in 'Life!' one day and the thought struck me: Definitely A03! Kai says I'm right :)

I find it very interesting how well the mythologies and philosophies of Taoism (and attendent Chinese religions) and Buddhism blend. In Chinese myth and folklore, you can find the Jade Emperor and the Buddha co-existing cheek by jowl, and this is accepted without dissent by adherents of traditional Chinese religions.


Quotes:

screening roaster (roster)

[Forum letter on SARS and the Iraq war] During breaks, I turn on the television to relax for a while, only to find even more depressing and stressful news.

[On the TV show Duke of Mount Deer 2000 aka Lu4 Ding3 Ji4] All the girls will become his wives... [Someone: All the girls acting for more than 5 minutes will become his wives]

[On the phone while on weekend duty] Hello. Duty clerk here. How's your dinner? Na beh.

[To someone else] Wah your lan jiao [is] very smelly

[On someone] He's really not a bad person, except that he's bald

[On Hot Socks] Come to think of it, I've never seen any JC girls wear normal socks

Everyone tells me that the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the Community Chest are filthy rich.

I don't know about the latter, but the former displays its wealth ostentatiously - apparently its premises are lavishly decorated, the temps are paid generously, and you can just see all the publicity they manage to drum up - even producing television shows. One wonders why so much cash and publicity is thrown at the NKF. In 2000, 81.1% of all deaths in Singapore were caused by (in descending order) Cancer, Ischaemic & Other Heart Diseases, Pneumonia, Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke) and Injuries. (Source: http://www.moh.gov.sg/hfacts/hfacts-gen-pcd.html). As far as I know, kidney failure contributes little or nothing towards the progression of these diseases. I smell a massive misallocation of resources. Where does all the NKF money go to besides organising charity shows with expensive prizes (the top prize this time is $188,000 according to a leaflet I got)? And it's not like they don't have sponsors. I'm told that dialysis is expensive, so I did some research.

http://asp.grameen.com/kidneybangla/Dialysis.htm
Haemodialysis/Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD)
The cost of haemodialysis is very high. Patient is dependent on machine for their life. The cost of dialysis per patient per year is approximately Tk. (Taka) 2,50,000.00/- (7,640.42 SGD). CAPD costs about as much.

COST OF IPD
INTERMITTENT PERITONEAL DIALYSIS (IPD)
The cost of single IPD is approximately TK. (Taka) 7500.00/- only (Ed: 229.213 SGD Singapore Dollars) . In IPGMR this form of treatment is being offered free of cost.

http://www.sangstat.com/resource/solid_cost.asp
The cost of dialysis is US$45,000 to US$50,000 per year.

http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/01aug97/aggressv.htm
For survivors who remained dialysis-dependent, we estimated outpatient costs of long-term dialysis as follows. In a comprehensive cost analysis comparing the costs of dialysis with the costs of transplantation, we estimated the total annual cost of dialysis to be $32 800 in 1989 dollars ($46 322 in 1994 dollars) (17). Because 41% of those costs were for inpatient care, we subtracted 41% from this figure to avoid double counting inpatient hospital costs. Therefore, we assumed that the annual outpatient cost would be $27 330 for survivors who required long-term dialysis.

I've no idea how much NKF charges its patients, and how much their costs are, as this information is suspiciously missing from its website, but you can access its balance sheet here: http://www.nkfs.org/finance/index.html. I wonder if anyone did a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of how this money is spent.

Counter points raised by others:

1. Maybe a reason not that many people die of kidney failure is that the NKF's efforts work.
2. Just because not that many people die from kidney failure doesn't mean that NKF is wastin money. Say there are 100 people with kidney failure and 1000 people with potential strokes: The money could just as well be channelled to helping the 100 people with kidney failure or 100 people out of the 1000 who have potential strokes
3. Just because you dun don't die from it doesn't mean it's not worth helping. [Ed: Yes, but shouldn't saving lives be a higher priority?]
4. Maybe the fact that money goes to NKF is because death from kidney failure is actually preventable. While most people who get strokes/heart attacks just fall down and die without warning


Only 57% of people polled recently disapproved of the selling of Playboy in Singapore. I'm pleasantly surprised, if still a little disappointed at Singaporeans' conservatism and prudishness. They're still not willing to trust each other as responsible adults, and get a perverse sense of satisfaction by imposing their odd moral notions on others.

The logic we have seems to be that if a majority of society disapproves of something, it should not be allowed. So hypothetically, if 57% of Singaporeans thought Islam should be banned, would it? Surely not. More likely, the ministers would flock to lament the lack of religious tolerance.

Strange that few lament the lack of emotional and social maturity.


The qigong guy (I assume it's the same as the previous one since the ad is similar) is advertising again! He's inviting people to hit his body parts at 3pm on Sunday, 3rd April at Geylang and he will use his "qi" to repel them and protect himself.

"Nam Wah Pai Qigong Demo"

"Have you ever seen a person attacked not move and yet his attacker is thrown off some distance away? (macrocosmic Energy Movement)"

"See the Master using his "Qi" energy to repel 8 strong men charging at him"

Wah. Sounds funky. I also want to learn how to harness cosmic energy.


I wonder why the TV show Duke of Mount Deer 2000 aka Lu4 Ding3 Ji4, currently showing on Channel U, is so popular. Maybe it's because all males want to have 7 wives :) A selection of pictures follows:



Group photo in the palace (ignore the nun)



All sitting on a wooden jetty dressed as tribeswomen



Mugshots



The one they killed off because Shu Qi was too expensive

Excellent article (though in a more secularised society like Singapore's, there's really nothing to come out of):

Coming Out - Atheism: The Other Closet

"The religious right have engaged an a war of words and slander against their greatest enemy: the logic and common sense of atheism. The Bible goes so far as to forbid contact with atheists (2 Corinthians 6:14), thereby stemming debate and preventing the incursion of logical, non-religious ideas entering the flock... Only a small portion of atheists are open (out of the closet) about their atheism, and as a result we are viewed as a much smaller percentage of the population than we really are. In other words, the legislators are paying less attention to us than they should. In still other words, the Christian Right are winning.

To me, one of the best components of atheism is the freedom of thought and mind. Prejudice against people of other sexes, races, or sexual preferences is rare, because most of such prejudice is religion-based and completely illogical. We argue with each other, thrive on debate, and feel like we're better people after we've been proven wrong. We do good because it's the right thing to do, not out of a selfish fear of eternal damnation or a need to "win points" with a deity... Since we are bound only by our disbelief, there are atheists with differing views on every political, economic, and social issue. I view this as a benefit which should serve as a model from which the rest of the world could learn. Atheists are united in diversity. We are moral, we are ethical, and we're tired of being defamed and maligned for our disbelief. Sound familiar?

The fact is, that there is nothing shameful about atheism. Rather, it should be viewed as a major accomplishment. Most people stick with the religion in which they were raised, never thinking or examining the reasons why. Those that switch religions (or sects of a particular religion) often never truly question the belief in a god. Those that do should be proud that they have searched and reached an educated conclusion, and so should you.

As an atheist, you have broken out of the cycle of doing what you're told because someone says God says so. You think for yourself, you are self reliant, and you are responsible for your own actions and decisions. Showing yourself is your next great decision.

Coming Out - Doing it.

Ok, so now you've decided/realized that you're an atheist, and you're about to tell the people you know about it. Exactly how is it done?

There are three simple rules to follow when coming out as an atheist, which I've found to be quite helpful.

1. Be confident. Don't come out by saying "I'm thinking that I'm having some doubts about religion." This will only invite people to try to "save you before it's too late." When you tell people, state it with no uncertain terms, in the present tense, and make sure to convey that you've come to an educated decision. Try something like "after a lot of soul searching and talking to a lot of people, I've decided to give up on religion" or "I've been an atheist for some time now, so I won't be going to church with you anymore."

Smile, be confident, and proud. This is an accomplishment not a shame. This is a good thing you want to share with your loved ones. If you convey this attitude, the people you are telling may receive these signals, which may make the situation go a little easier.

2. Be Compassionate. Yes, YOU be compassionate to THEM. Understand that the people you tell love you, and actually believe in God and their preachers' teachings. They are victims - just as you are - of the lies and falsehoods told by religious organizations, the only difference being they actually may believe those lies. They may express their emotions as anger, but a little education and steadfastness mixed with understanding may allow them to get over that hump quickly.

Make sure you tell your parents that they succeeded (instead of failed) in raising you as a person who makes his/her own decisions and does not follow blindly. They did a good job. Tell them you're happy, and, at the end, let it slip in that this is your decision and that they have no reason to be hurt or to judge you, and that you're grateful for their acceptance and love.

3. Hope for the Best, but prepare for the worst. The best is obviously "I'm an atheist too" or "so what" but don't count on it. As I said earlier, friends are easier than anyone else, and are less likely to reject you because of you atheism. I've lost potential friendships because of it, but never an established friend (even the most pious ones). However, be prepared for all the standard questions from "you're going to Hell" to "does this mean you pray to Satan" to "How could you do this to me?" from loved ones and family members.

The best defense for this is to have answers for questions at the ready. You know your people better than anyone, and are best suited for guessing what those questions might be. Below are some frequently-used statements and some suggested counterpoints for your reference:

* "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God" - What a sad world it is when people can seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good.

Humans have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as their upbringing and society. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal, but because it's the right thing to do. We value family, society, culture, and, of course, freedom. Many of us will - and have - defend these values with our lives.

Examples:

o Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. This shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to measure moral or ethical behavior.

o Mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don't forget our good friends Jim Bakker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes).

o Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We'd have chaos! These will serve to prove that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related.

* "Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn't answer as many questions as creationism"- Atheism is not a scientific theory, rather a lack of religion. We do believe in science, and that all questions will eventually be answered with science if they are not answered today, but we readily admit that not all answers are known to us right now. That is no reason, however, for inventing a fictional god to whom to give credit, especially when all it does is create more questions. Science has done well so far, giving theories regarding evolution, geological movement, and the Big Bang, all supported by evidence, but not necessarily endorsed by all atheists.

* "Atheists cannot know there is no God, since you cannot prove he doesn't exist" - Again, this is a two sided coin, but the theists are loathe to admit the other side. Atheists don't need to prove the non-existence of God, any more we need to prove the nonexistence of Zeus or Santa Claus. Can theists prove God over any alternatives? Of course not. Nobody can prove God exists, yet they will stand on their heads saying they're sure. Well, if they can be sure despite evidence to the contrary, we can be sure in light of evidence in support of atheism.

* "Atheists seek to remove religion from society, and to force all people to be atheists" - Absolutely wrong. We seek only the freedom for people to make their choice on their own, free of intervention from the government or public school system. We seek the freedom not to support religion through taxes, forced participation, or special privileges of any kind. That being said, your thoughts are your rights, and none of our business. Wear your jewelry, celebrate your holidays, and pray in your house, church, or in public if you like. Just don't force your religion on other people. That's what we're all about.

* "Atheists are so closed-minded, they can't see that miracles happen every day!" - Some people look for miracles where none exist (they never do). Allow me to put things in perspective: Someone's cancer going into remission is no miracle, but we can talk when disease suddenly disappears from the face of the earth overnight without help from medical science. Food getting through to a hungry village: human perseverance. Starvation vanishing from earth without a reason overnight: Miracle. One more time: A child is born - science; The spontaneous end of birth defects - Miracle. Got it?

Note: only good things are miracles, so volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes don't count. Just for good measure, I also wanted to list some good questions to have as support for your reasoning to be an atheist. NOTE: These may start or worsen a fight, and are to be used sparingly. They are dangerous questions which can only be answered with "the lord works in mysterious ways" or the like. You also might get the old "you're asking questions about God, so you must believe in Him" speech. This is easily countered by saying that it's easier to prove the bible wrong using the bible itself, and that your arguments do not constitute an acknowledgement of God's existence any more than a discussion about Greek mythology would prove a belief in Zeus.

Use these only when you are sure of a congenial discussion, and be prepared to agree to disagree.

* If God is all-powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th? Why didn't he just snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need rest afterwards? Doesn't sound so all-powerful to me.

* If God knows the future, why does he make mistakes? He should have known he would regret the flood, and that Sodom and Gomora would be full of sinners, etc.

* Why does God need to be "served", and why can't we do it from heaven?

* Yes, we have free will, but God already knows who will sin, who will accept Him, etc, for all eternity (since he has perfect knowledge of the future). Why then, are we here? Why not just send our souls to Heaven or Hell, depending on what he knows we'll do?

* Why does God care if he is praised? He is this all-knowing, super being, why does he care if we mere humans give him credit for creating the universe?

* How can you justify the fact that this merciful, loving god is sending all non-Christians to Hell, no matter how good they are? Even those from before Christ was born went to hell. However, terrible people, including Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer, could go to Heaven if they repented before death.

* Why does this wonderful, forgiving God hold Adam's sin over all our heads? Why must we all pay for this by being permanent sinners? If God was so pissed, why didn't he just kill Adam and Eve and start over? Again, this is God's choice, so they're going to have to explain why God CHOOSES to hold this incredible grudge.

* Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

Once you've both agreed to disagree, you've successfully outed yourself to that person. Avoid that awkward post discussion silence, making sure the discussion has completed, and not that the person to whom you are speaking is searching for words to continue. The best thing to do is change the subject to something positive, smile, and get on with your relationship with this person. S/he may need some time to adapt, but it will be made easier if you be yourself and show your happiness at being free of the closet.

Be a proud, open, honest atheist, not another closeted victim of the Christian Right."

Not your everyday Teh Tarik Man



PRIZE-WINNING AGILITY: Norazlin performing his way to the RM10,000 first prize. He combined martial arts moves with his teh tarik skills, which included somersaulting while holding a full mug of tea and balancing on one leg atop a ladder.

As I always have chanted : Malaysia Boleh!

From He Who Must Not Be Named:

"In Speech, Bush Calls Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'Axis of Evil" -- N.Y. Times, 1/30/02

ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil; Other Nations Start Own Clubs

Beijing (SatireWire.com) � Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."

THE AXIS PANDEMIC

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.

"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

I seem to be getting not a few commenters from Melbourne University.

Andrew's friends? :)

We were cleaning the toilet one morning when Jason got into one of his moods, and started pulling my singlet and singing a Chinese love song. I then threatened to serenade him with madrigals :) I also saw Melvin cleaning the shower cubicles with the toilet bowl scrub - eeeeew. "What they don't know won't hurt them." Grr. While cleaning, I was also pondering why most people dislike toilet cleaning. Granted: It's wet and dirty, but it's much easier and faster than bunk cleaning. Of course, nothing beats the smoking point.

There was one night where they tried to pin down and stip Yong Siang 4 times, but didn't succeed even on the fourth try, with my semi-complicity. I'll put it down to bad teamwork.

On Tuesday, we had an outing to watch 'The Core' at Jurong Point. We managed to catch the shuttle bus, and Yaodong was on it! Only when we got to Jurong Point, he was still sleeping, and no one bothered to wake him up. We, being the last ones to get off the bus, crept off carefully so as not to disturb his slumber, and in the end the bus driver had to shout him awake. Oh well. A few days later, someone was telling me how he came in one night on a stretcher, but miraculously got up in the ambulance to talk to the medic and remove his mask, only to fall into a coma again once the ambulance reached Tengah Medical Centre, waking up again when the ambulance left for NUH and then falling into a coma again when they reached NUH. Why does he do all this, I wonder? Doesn't he realise it only makes people hate him?

We had to clean the very dirty fans in our bunk, and one was directly above Yong Siang's bed. Even after I had put sheets of old newspaper on his bed, though, some of the dirt fell onto it, leaving black marks on the bedsheet and the others were saying that Yong Siang would kill me when he came back. After some consideration, I had a brainwave, and took one of many packets of SAF powder in one wooden shoe cupboard and sprinkled and rubbed powder onto the black spots, reasoning that this would make the black marks invisible. However, there were now obvious patches of cream on the white bedsheet, like it'd gotten vitiligo, so I proceeded to dump the whole packet of powder onto the bed so the splotches weren't obvious. Yong Siang loves powder anyway, so this wouldn't have been a problem for him. Later that night, Boon Huat came back and seeing Yong Siang's bed unoccupied, he took it with glee, it being the best bed due to its location directly under the fan. Since by then the lights were off and we were all sleeping, he didn't see the condition of the bed, so when he sat on it, *poof* went the powder. The next morning, when I awoke, there was a thick layer of powder on my wooden cabinet - Boon Huat had hit most of the powder from the bed, and much had gone onto my wooden cabinet.

The Printol company, Coventry Chemicals, hasn't produced any Printol for a while, apparently because they ran out of some ingredients, so we now have 'Sudol'. It is made by them too and comes in the same container, but it sucks. It has more than twice the concentration, is "toxic" rather than corrosive, and smells like sewage in concentrated form (at least Printol smells sorta nice and clean). The smell was so bad that after mopping the floor with it, I felt like fainting. :(

I did someone a favour by exchanging duties with him, taking Friday even though this week had a long weekend, since he said he had something to do. That was okay, but somehow, my company got an early release on Friday and fell out at 12pm, while the Medics left at 3 plus. Argh argh argh. Just my luck.

One poor guy reported sick for footrot but we had trouble getting his temperature, so I had to take his rectal temperature :( Luckily, it wasn't as traumatising (both for me and him) as I'd thought it would be.

Melvin dug up the old bottle of air freshener, so we tried to do the party trick of using it as a flamethrower. When we tried, however, the gas wouldn't light. "Non-flammable". Gah.

People love to play with the Treatment Room Screen Saver (but oddly, none other), mostly by inserting "Jiabao" into the Marquee text, so I went to move and rename the marquee file. Muahaha. I am 1337.

I was trying to recall the Seven Wonders of the World according to Herodotus, with Choo and Andrew, and dammit I could only remember six. The Pyramids were a no-brainer (though apparently it's only Khufu's which is the wonder), the Hanging Gardens of Babylon came easily, as did the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (though I remembered it as the Mausoleum *of* Halicarnassus), the Colossus of Rhodes and the Lighthouse of Pharos in Alexandria. However hard I tried, though, I couldn't remember The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Damn. I'm really losing my touch.

I finally went to ask one Corporal playing CS in the old E-learning centre how one could get to do that. Apparently one must be from the School of Armour to draw the key :( I thought the place belonged to the whole camp!


Even though we're out of BMT, we still have to obey commands as if we're dogs - "Up!", "Sit!" and the like. Nay, even dogs are better treated - they don't have to knock it down, and they get doggie biscuits when they obey. For us, we just have to move the moment we hear the barked commands - which is practically everyday. In fact, even in BMT it wasn't that bad - at most they'd do a sit-stand combo when we were slow. Sad indeed it is in the Army, when sadism masquerades as enforcing discipline, and regimentation is implemented for regimentation's sake.

I think, apart from off days and long weekends, a new type of off should be introduced - stay out. This will fill the last hole in the compensation of servicemen, and can be a minor reward. Current SOP personnel - too bad,

AETC is getting 6 days off per week of duty at Jurong Island. And Lenny had the nerve to complain!


More unhealthy ads: Slimming Sanctuary - "How do I measure my success? Inch by inch!" This is bad. Females will then take the size of their waistlines as a proxy for other measures of self-worth.

Chua Lee Hoong was bashed in the forum for her column, "Me? I'd rather save the money on". Aww. Personally, I find her columns less irritating - both in style and content - and one-sided nowadays, but they're still irksome most of the time.

Osim is advertising for a 'super dry steam cleaner'. Wth. How can steam be dry? Especially when it condenses.

Some Arabs were unhappy that the Iraqis didn't resist the 'coalition' (of but 2 major nations and 2 token ones). One even said that "I spit on them". Right. *They * weren't the ones who had to live under Saddam. And for all the hooha about the un-balanced coverage of American TV, Arab channels didn't show the scenes of jubilation in the country when Baghdad fell. Meanwhile, no one cares about the Congolese and they are relegated to a footnote in the news (if indeed, they are mentioned at all with SARS and Iraq and all)

A camp mate has seen the joys of Phoenix. Muaha (though I still prefer Mozilla). And some camp mates I showed the Happy Tree Friends too said it was "e3 xin1". Hehe.


In the lift with a woman and her two children:

Woman: Let gor gor go out first
Girl: Uncle lah, what gor gor

Gah! I'm not that old, am I?


Quotes:

I will integrate him later (interrogate)

I can't stand it when you call him 'Thunder Thighs'. It's so funny

[On my stomach] It's the 'no support' pillow. My head keeps sinking in

I'm very willing to receive arrows. You ask me, I won't reject you one (If you, you)

[On me] Ta1 xiao3 shi2 hou4 bu4 hui4 fei2 [Translation: When he was young, he wasn't fat] [Me: How do you know?] I went to your website [Me: Aiyah]

go for canteen break at the irreverent timings (breaks, irregular)

[Me: What do you think of our cookhouse?] Fucked up! [Me: Do you eat breakfast [there]?] No. [Me: Do you eat lunch [there]?] No. [Me: Do you eat dinner [there]?] Sometimes.

I want a PDA. Help me indent [one].

[On Carex Condoms] Zhe4 ge4 ni3 outfield yong4 de4 [Translation: You use these outfield] (!!!)

[Leans close to me] Let me give you a kiss, man. *muak* *muak* *muak* [Sees no reaction from me] You're a homosexual, man. You're a homosexual. [Me: Your breath stinks]

Suppose you tell your PC: I play 'Neopets'. Your PC is Lin Yucheng. 'Very good, very good. Have you heard of this program? Hunter-seeker?... Recommend you for OCS.'

Can your girlfriend do this?

Damn.

Someone beat me to spoofing God's Billboards.

Here are two of my own - the first 2 being tongue-in-cheek and the latter having more of a mentally provocative bent. Unfortunately, it's hard to evoke certain concepts (some meta-physical in nature) succinctly so I don't think I'll be able to make any to spark people into thinking about the meaning of life.

Arguably the most demeaning, denigrating and plain disgusting bust enhancement ad I've seen in the Straits Times.

Boycott PrettiSlim's PrettiBosom!

Woah.

Lucky I signed up early.

Pyxz.com is now not free. It's cheap though at a one time fee of $5.

"# Excessive bandwidht (sic) usage applies tho accoutns create after April 8th 2003. Previous user accounts have been grandfathered since the service fee was not in place prior to this date.
# Customer agrees that bandwidth shall not exceed the 100 megabytes per day."

Ooh. Unlimited bandwith!!!


Arrogant Worms: Carrot Juice Is Murder

Listen up brothers and sisters come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night
This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream

Chorus:
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue
If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two
I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage
Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage
I told the judge when he sentenced me, "This is my finest hour,
I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower"

Chorus

How low as people do we dare to stoop,
Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes
Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!
Oh spare the spud! Eat a cow instead!

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir-fry are sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade
(is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade......)

Power to the peas! Give peas a chance!
all we are saying, is give peas a chance


LOL

Articles of Faith of the Apathetic Agnostic Church (The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic)

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.

3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.


The Last Question
Isaac Asimov

Copyright (c) 1956 by Columbia Publications, Inc
Used without permission for educational use

"The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five-dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way..."

A most intriguing short story. With an unexpected and amusing end *g*


Meditation 84

An imaginary dialogue with an imaginary deity

As mentioned in previous Meditations, there are a number of billboards erected along America's highways, with some 20 different messages, all signed God. Following is an imaginary dialogue between GotB (God of the Billboards) and AD (Agnostic Driver,) using just the undedited words from those billboards for GotB's side of the conversation. Be amused, or be offended.

GotB: We need to talk.

AD: I don't think so. These billboards are more than enough. If you actually "talked," I'd probably think I was crazy. Just like most of those who claim you talk to them. Why should I listen to an unprovable invisible entity?

GotB: I don't doubt your existence.

AD: That's because I possess objective reality. You don't. Your attributes seem to be more imaginary than real. Humans really were not made in your image.

GotB: Don't make me come down there.

AD: Is that a threat? You like to make empty threats don't you. And some of your followers say you are a loving god.

GotB: I love you and you and you and you and...

AD: You have a strange way of showing it. It seems to me the love is demanded, not given. But enough of these signs. I have to concentrate on my driving.

GotB: Need directions?

AD: No thank you. I know where I'm going.

GotB: Follow me.

AD: As I said, I know where I'm going. And following the invisible won't get me there.

GotB: My way is the highway.

AD: Right; you've certainly marked it as yours with all these billboards you've excreted along the wayside.

GotB: Will the road you're on get you to my place?

AD: I hope not. I'm not planning on an accident. Though with this g@%d#@*# traffic...

GotB: Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer.

AD: So you've fallen back into threat mode! If you really can influence rush hour, consider making it shorter. Then there will be a lot less swearing. Anyway, there are evils in the world that you should be more concerned with than the occasional curse.

GotB: What part of "Thou Shalt Not..." didn't you understand?

AD: Oh I understand those three words alright. They say a lot about the personality your believers have given you. It is the words that follow them that I question. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." How many people did you order the Israelites to kill in the Old Testament? And that after you had given out the commandment. It really amounts to "Thou shalt not kill unless ordered by a voice in your head claiming to be god."

GotB: Have you read my #1 best seller? There will be a test.

AD: I've probably read more of it than most of your followers. As to the test, will the science questions be real? Or the ridiculous Genesis version?

GotB: Big bang theory, you've got to be kidding.

AD: No. The real question is why so many of your followers think the scientific theories of creation necessarily exclude god. Why can't they understand that while the creation story in Exodus is a myth, it maypossibly express an even more profound religious truth. Considering god working through science would be a much more intelligent religious view than that blindly accepted by the idiots who erected that sign in your name.

GotB: That "Love Thy Neighbor" thing... I meant it.

AD: Are you taking offence because I referred to certain of your followers as idiots? As long as they try to stuff their foolish religious views down my throat, they will never be loved by me. Not even liked! But other than applyingthat rule to them, I'll admit it is pretty good guidance. Too bad you didn't think of it first. But of course, your preachers claim in their sermons that you did.

GotB: Let's meet at my house Sunday before the game.

AD: Before the game? Does this mean you've softened the fourth commandment? So you really are into sports? And which team is it that you really listen to the prayers of?

GotB: C'mon over and bring the kids.

AD: Catholic priests? Jehovah's Witness Elders? Do you really think I'd let the kids anywhere near a church?

GotB: Tell the kids I love them.

AD: Yeah - right! It's bad enough we have to protect them from your clergy...

GotB: Loved the wedding, invite me to the marriage.

AD: I don't think so. We don't accept that whole "wife as property" concept.

GotB: You think it's hot here?

AD: You really have to get those idiots who put up these billboards to change them with the seasons. It exposes the ineptness of it all when this particular sign is snow covered


I should spoof those highway billboards someday.


Lastly, a better essay than I'll ever write - short, sweet, lucid and to the point:

Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

"What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God. "

He doesn't touch on alleged 'experiences', though. This site does, though. Interestingly:

"epileptics have historically tended to be the people with the great mystical experiences. The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, wrote of 'touching God' during epileptic seizures. Other religious figures from the past who may have been epileptic include S Paul, Joan of Arc, S Theresa of Avila and Emanuel Swedenhorg, the eighteenth-century founder of the New Jerusalem Church... Neurosurgeons who stimulate the limbic system during open-brain surgery say their patients occasionally report experiencing religious sensations. And Alzheimer�s disease, which is often marked by a loss of religious interest, tends to cripple the limbic system early on... anyone who still doubts the brain�s ability to generate religious experiences need only visit neuroscientist Michael Persinger at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. Almost anyone can have a mystical experience just by wearing his magnetic hat. Persinger uses transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce all sorts of surreal experiences in ordinary people... For non-religious people, it is the feeling of a ghost, but religious types identify the presence as God."

OMG:

Offer of the Week at lastminute.com



Full monty military day experience - �0�1discount
Enjoy some heavy duty machine control with �0�1off the normal price

Ever fancied yourself at the controls of some serious military vehicles churning through mud, roaring up hills and possibly even running over a family saloon in a 55 ton Chieftain Main Battle Tank?

Can't wait to get your hands on an exhilarating experience? Give one of our experts a ring on 0870 241 6975 and you can book straight away.

What happens on the day?

This purpose built course with steep side slopes and deep mud pools will test your driving skills to the full. There are a variety of activities available on the day which usually include a 432 Armored Personnel Carrier, Snowcats, 548 Rapier Missile Launcher, Ferret Scout Vehicles, the Amphibious Stalwart and an Abbot 17 tone Gun Tank.

Also included are events such as target shooting or maybe even learn a few SAS skills. You will be awarded points for performance with the best driver of the day getting to crush a family saloon with your tank, an experience you will never forget.

When is it? Selected Saturdays throughout the year excluding December and January

Start Time: 9:00
Finish: 17:00 - 18:00

Where does the experience take place?
Northampton.

How long should I allow for this experience?
8 hours.

Are there any restrictions?

Minimum age 12
Maximum age 88
Minimum height 5ft
Maximum weight 125kg
Maximum chest measurement 50 inches.

What does the customer need to bring with them?
A towel and a change of clothing incase of wet weather. Please wear casual clothes.

About the instructors?
All instructors are professionally trained and offer a wealth of experience with heavy artillery vehicles.

Is there disabled access?
No.

Can friends and family come along to watch?
Yes - �pp, which includes a ride on a vehicle and lunch.

What about insurance?
Public Liability Insurance for �is included, along with all third party insurance for any vehicles or equipment used on the day. Personal Accident Insurance and cancellation cover for up to �000 is included. Details will be enclosed within your pack.

What happens when I book?

• Your presentation pack will be sent to you by first class post within 5 working days. Please allow 7 days for delivery during peak postal times
• Your full colour presentation gift pack will contain information about the experience, details of how to book, a personalised gift certificate and an open dated voucher valid for 9 months
• Booking a date couldn't be easier. After receiving your pack, simply telephone the number detailed in your information pack and they will do the rest
• It is advised that you book at least 4 weeks in advance, but sometimes last minute places are available
• Please note: delivery is by Royal Mail therefore lastminute.com cannot be held responsible for delays caused by the postal system

Please note we are acting as agents for 3rd party suppliers, please see our terms and conditions.

Jiekai came up to me at the shuttle bus stop on Tuesday and said "I'm posted here" but scuttled up the bus before I could do anything.

Gah.


I'm currently torn between the:

Olympus C350

and the

Canon A70

The cupboards in our Ops Room are named after girls. Just like the hills in our training area. I suppose this is so people can say things like "I'm on top of Jennifer", "We're attacking Jane now" and "I'm hugging Belinda". This goes to show how deprived NS guys really can be.

Yaodong came to report sick and was prescribed an IV. Unfortunately, he didn't let the medic poke him, so the MO had to come in and screw him, then poke him. Later, when the bag of fluid ran out, one of the Senior Medics went to remove the catheter and poke him again, instead of changing the bag. Everybody loves screwing Yaodong.

The SAF has implemented a new directive - everyone will have only one shot at range every year. I guess they finally figured out why they were losing so much money every year, both from the rounds and the marksmanship money *g* I'm just waiting for all the units in the BUC list to find loopholes, though the rule does seem rather airtight. Too bad IPPT and SOC don't cost them any money :(

Dannie laminated his status slip - PES C9L2 Perm, Ex-Running, Ex-Jumping, Ex-Drill Perm. GAH.


On our last night off in the month of March, almost all of us went out together, and we met up with Junxiong and Ming Kiat on the shuttle bus. Half of us were agitating for Fish & Co, while the other half claimed they were broke, thus proving the truth of the maxim that when you go out in a group of more than 2, one person will always be broke. At first they wanted to go to Long John Silver's, but later they suddenly walked into Pizza Hut (Yeech!). In the end, the price wasn't much less than what it'd have been at Fish & Co. Oh well. I guess people only like what they are familiar with. Later, we saw Henry at NTUC. He looks a little different, but still has the dark circles under his eyes that make him look like a drug addict, albeit our favourite drug addict :)

Later, we were in NTUC stocking up on provisions and people were looking for material in magazines to decorate the new book in / book out book. And someone *had* to make an Asian Prince reference:

Me: What we need is something tasteful.
Boon Wei: Like Asian Prince.
Me: *laughs semi-hysterically*
Yong Siang (in Chinese): In the future, don't make him laugh

Why does everyone like to make bad Asian Prince references?

Boon Wei also suggested, jokingly, no doubt (alas!), that we use some autopsy pictures from April's FHM magazine.

So on Tuesday, while I was waiting to book out, they were decorating the new book in / book out book, splashing tasteless pictures of semi-naked females all over its covers. I was fuming in bunk, waiting for them to be done so I could book out, when Prakash suggested that we sign the book first, before they finished decorating it. Damn. Why didn't *I* think of that? Anyhow when we traipsed down to the medical centre, I found that there were actually 2 pictures of males - one of a digitally simulated Bruce Lee and another of a topless beng with a stereo who reminded me of Jason - on the book in / book out book, and many of the pictures weren't totally just tasteless, gratuitous displays of female flesh after all, so I retracted my implicit threat to take pictures from rotten.com, or of Asian Prince, and paste them all over the book.

In the end, when I booked in on Wednesday night, I found that the pictures of females had been removed and replaced with drawings, in black and white, of something I can't quite describe. They looked like a fusion of several American Indian Totemic Creatures, but they were quite defined and not splashes of paint and so were not modern art.


I wonder why my mother always sits in the car when my father fetches me to camp. Is it so that she can nag, scold and admonish me? It certainly seems so. Perhaps it makes her feel better to relate anecdotes of dubious origin to attempt to shame me.

The season for Qing Ming is here and traffic's a killer on weekend mornings, so going to camp then is a drag. There are so many people bustling around the normally empty area, and so many cars parked along the side of the road. For some reason, it reminds me of a Malaysian Farmer's Market.

There was this sick Taiwanese show on Channel i when I last did Sunday duty. There were these 4 Lian looking 18 or 19 year old girls, the flower of Taiwan's youth, all with rebonded hair and in very Lian outfits, who'd been rated by people on a panel, and 'judges' in the studio had to guess their ratings as accurately as possible, while the girls' heights and weights were displayed in a sidebar at the side of the screen (at least it wasn't their 'vital statistics'). Later, the girls had to go out into the streets of Taipei and see how many guys were willing to give them their phone numbers, and the one with the most numbers won. And to end off, the girls did a catwalk (Point of information: Of the 4, 1 was totally inept, and another not very good). All in all, it just seemed like an excuse for males to ogle at females. Which is why hormonally charged Singaporean males in NS like to watch it.

Hamtaro is really intolerable! The TV happened to be on Channel i, and these humans were having a picnic, and they were shaking their heads to and fro merrily while singing the Hamtaro theme. The sheer horror of that caused me to run shrieking, with my hands over my ears, into the documentation room to hide from the gruesome sight.

I realised that anorexic girls can't donate blood since the criteria is that the donor has to weigh more than 50kg. One more advantage of being anorexic!

There's this Roman Catholic Church Leader in the Philippines named Sin. So he's "Cardinal Sin". HAHAHAHA.

The Straits Times was interviewing this suicide-bomber-to-be and his name, as given by the PLO's military wing's leader as 'Mohamad'. Whee. So we have narrowed down his identity to being among the 75% of Muslim males called Mohammad.

I called M1's customer service and the person at the phone was a male. Finally! One small step for a man, one giant leap for man-kind.


People are fond of criticising criticism of others' (or their own) works by asking "Can you do better?". However, if this logic were to hold, almost no one would be able to criticise others, and movie, film, art and book critics would be out of a job. People rarely criticise and say that they can do better - so why challenge them? It is the prerogative of the creator to do his best, and of the critic to criticise fairly.

I'm reaching the big 20 this year. Scary.


Quotes:

[Me on an Adidas Blue Spaghetti Strap Tank Top: $41.90 for this? This is extortionate. This is exorbitant.] Who says? It can help you attract more guys to pay for you.

[Me on the new book in / book out book: What we need is something tasteful.] Like Asian Prince. [Me: *laughs semi-hysterically*] [Someone else (in Chinese): In the future, don't make him laugh]

[Me: I saw this very stupid video] Porn [Me: What?]

If I get an MMS phone, it must have a digital camera. [Someone: Upskirts] It's not the upskirts. [Someone: Downblouse] It's not the downblouse.

A Bit Of Earth
from The Secret Garden

Archibald:
A bit of earth
She wants a little bit of earth
She'll plant some seeds
The seeds will grow
The flowers bloom
But is their bounty
What she needs

How can she chance
To love a little bit of earth
Does she not know
The earth is old
And doesn't care if
One small girl wants things to grow

She needs a friend
She needs a father
Brother, sister
Mother's arms
She needs to laugh
She needs to dance
And learn to work
Her girlish charms

She needs a home
The only thing she really needs
I cannot give
Instead she asks
A bit of earth
To make it live

She should have a pony
Gallop 'cross the moor
She should have a doll's house
With a hundred rooms per floor
Why can't she ask for a treasure
Something that money can buy
That won't die
When i'd give her the world
She asks, instead
For some earth

A bit of earth
She wants a little bit of earth
She'll plant some seeds
The seeds will grow
The flowers bloom
Their beauty just the thing she needs

She'll grow to love the tender roses
Lilies fair, the iris tall
And then in fall, her bit of earth
Will freeze and kill them all

A bit of earth, a bit of earth
A bit of earth, a bit of earth


I'm rather pissed off that I can't find a version of this that *isn't* sung by Charlotte Church. Her style is too operatic and is rather disgusting. Or maybe I've been influenced by my sister.

Due to Bunny's endless coercion, I have finally finished Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game.

The book is quite adult-oriented, yet still approachable.

The kids are so precocious (even more so than Bunny), so much so that it's simply unreal, and I have trouble accepting that an 11 year old boy can save the world.

The characters are mostly male, but then Battle School sounds like something males would be more oriented towards.

It's quite sad to see how the kids are force grow up as they exploit the urges of the little boys to play soldier. They effectively have no childhood, and many of them become vicious monsters.


Irritating/funny quotes:

"I can't do a weekly column," Valentine said. "I don't even have a monthly period yet." (...)

"Early to bed and early to rise," Mazer intoned, "makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes."


Finally, something from Melvin Tay Poh Huat that isn't porn!

http://cartoonfile.163.com/source/42532/lang.swf

Why do people like inane quizzes so much? Here's a short one for all of you compulsive quiz do-ers:

1. How many quizzes of this nature have you ever done?
2. Are you sure? I bet you've lost count, haven't you?
3. Do you plan to forward this to everyone you know (and not a few you don't) and spam their mailboxes? Naughty, aren't you!
4. How much of your time have you frilled away answering these inane questions that, in one form or another, repeat endlessly?
5. Do you think anyone really cares what underwear you are wearing right now, or how many ticks live on your dog?
6. Think of a number, any number
7. Think of another number
8. Now think what the point of that exercise was
9. Do you feel fulfilled now, after finishing this pointless quiz?

Banana Jr. Series Computer

The Banana computer was first introduced in 1984, and was labeled as "Jr." to emphasize its affordability. This obscure computer system had a number of innovative hardware and software features. Many of these features were too far ahead of its time, and it had many shortcomings which ultimately doomed it to failure.

Notable features included:

* A fully graphical operating environment.
* A powerful word processing, spreadsheet, and management package.
* Powerful 32-bit CPU.
Speech recognition.
* User friendly interactive AI interface.

The shortcomings included:

* Some assembly was was required by end users. (Quite a bit of assembly actually)
* Reportedly the documentation for the 9000 model was shipped with the 6000 model causing some confusion.
* The interactive AI was very uncooperative. (This AI is now being used by Microsoft in Windows XP)
Problems with the self-portability features were suspected, but never proven, to be the cause of Banana Jr. owners often finding their kitchen appliances lying in front of their living room televisions.

The Banana Computer Company went out of business in April of 1985. Reportedly it was a painful demise for the company, losing $319 million in march alone. The chairman of the board did a swan dive out of a 63rd floor window after painting "capitalism sucks" across his chest. The brains behind the design of the Banana Jr. , Berke Breathed, reportedly went insane and became a cartoonist. The Banana Jr. was discontinued and the platform abandoned...

Read more...

◊◊ Things Computers Can Do In Movies ◊◊

1. Word processors never display a cursor.
2. You never have to use the space-bar when typing long sentences.
3. Movie characters never make typing mistakes.
4. All monitors display inch-high letters.
5. High-tech computers, such as those used by NASA, the CIA or some such governmental institution, will have easy to understand graphical interfaces.
6. Those that don't have graphical interfaces will have incredibly powerful text-based command shells that can correctly understand and execute commands typed in plain English.
7. Note: Command line interfaces will give you access to any information you want by simply typing, "ACCESS THE SECRET FILES" on any near-by keyboard.
8. You can also infect a computer with a destructive virus by simply typing "UPLOAD VIRUS". (See "Fortress".)
9. All computers are connected. You can access the information on the villain's desktop computer even if it's turned off.
10. Powerful computers beep whenever you press a key or the screen changes. Some computers also slow down the output on the screen so that it doesn't go faster than you can read. (Really advanced computers will also emulate the sound of a dot-matrix printer.)
11. All computer panels operate on thousands of volts and have explosive devices underneath their surface. Malfunctions are indicated by a bright flash of light, a puff of smoke, a shower of sparks and an explosion that causes you to jump backwards.
12. People typing on a computer can safely turn it off without saving the data.
13. A hacker is always able to break into the most sensitive computer in the world by guessing the secret password in two tries.
14. You may bypass "PERMISSION DENIED" message by using the "OVERRIDE" function. (See "Demolition Man".)
15. Computers only take 2 seconds to boot up instead of the average minutes for desktop PCs and 30 minutes or more for larger systems that can run 24 hours, 365 days a year without a reset.
16. Complex calculations and loading of huge amounts of data will be accomplished in under three seconds. Movie modems usually appear to transmit data at the speed of two gigabytes per second.
17. When the power plant/missile site/main computer overheats, all control panels will explode shortly before the entire building will.
18. If you display a file on the screen and someone deletes the file, it also disappears from the screen (See "Clear and Present Danger").
19. If a disk contains encrypted files, you are automatically asked for a password when you insert it.
20. Computers can interface with any other computer regardless of the manufacturer or galaxy where it originated. (See "Independence Day".)
21. Computer disks will work on any computer has a floppy drive and all software is usable on any platforms.
22. The more high-tech the equipment, the more buttons it will have (See "Aliens".)
23. Note: You must be highly trained to operate high-tech computers because the buttons have no labels except for the "SELF-DESTRUCT" button.
24. Most computers, no matter how small, have reality-defying three-dimensional active animation, photo-realistic graphics capabilities.
25. Laptops always have amazing real-time video phone capabilities and performance similar to a CRAY Supercomputer.
26. Whenever a character looks at a monitor, the image is so bright that it projects itself onto their face. (See "Alien" or "2001")
27. Searches on the internet will always return what you are looking for no matter how vague your keywords are. (See "Mission Impossible", Tom Cruise searches with keywords like "file" and "computer" an 3 results are returned.)

...author unknown.

Another Happy Tree Friends Production

When I first saw this, I thought it was very screwed up. It gets much better later though :)

And more!

Haha

The Onion | I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates

Reworked introduction:

'Preface:

Following is an essay - part personal reflection, part dissertion - assembled from numerous pages of scribblings assembled by me in wroth after a Catholic Retreat in Sabah in March 2003, which caused me to renounce my faith and become an agnostic.

I am aware that the retreat I went to was of a ludicrously puritan and hideously ascetic bent ("sheesh. what you went to sounds like a cross between extreme puritan catholicism and charismatic movement. it is -not - representative of moderate christianity"), and that probably only the Pope and various other extremist fringe sects have such extreme and outdated views. Indeed, I am told that Singapore Christianity is "uniquely perverted" and "takes itself far too seriously". Nonetheless, the retreat has scarred my psyche indelibly, pissed me off immeasurably and alienated me considerably, resulting in a pronounced aversion towards Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity.

Thus, I have written this essay - in part to consolidate my thoughts and reflections, also to set out a case for why I believe that religion - especially human-organised and interpreted religion - is likely a delusion, but mainly to rebut all the points of doctrine preached at the retreat that I found repellent.

This retreat was conducted by one priest, mostly. He will, hereon, be referred to as "the priest"

1) Disclaimer and primer

The author is no stranger to controversy, and does not shy away from traditionally taboo topics. He believes in the Socratic method of seeking truth, and (so far) hasn't been forced to drink hemlock yet. If you are fond of excommunicating people on the slightest pretext, or if every other facet of the modern world is blasphemous to you, you might want to give this essay a miss. But a thought for you: "Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if he is as little as that, he is beneath it." - Mark Twain. On the other hand, if you've never questioned your faith, or if you are in your religion only because you were brought up in it, perhaps some meditation would serve you in good stead. Just don't get too lost in the interminable passages.

In this essay, I have tried to deal with a broad range of topics, ignoring a few like Creation "Science" and the Immaculate Conception, and have neither the space, time nor ability to explore many issues to as deep a level as I would like. I have no revolutionary, earth-shaking ideas to share, as this ground is well trod upon, and indeed some might say barren, but I hope some insights might be found useful. I've tried to exercise some form of essay discipline but the sheer extent and wealth of material is overwhelming, really, especially since I've no editor. I'll be working on this essay when I have material to add, or when the whim strikes me, though, so it should steadily become more lucid. All feedback (but for mindless hate mail) is welcome. Many thanks are due to all who have given feedback so far :)

Hopefully, everything should come together as a coherent whole by the end of this tract :)'

Verily, I am excoriated, reviled and crushed. Despised, rejected, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces. Despised, and people esteem me not.

Version 1.5 will be coming at an unspecified point in the future :)

Something I got in the (e)mail:

Rafflesians for Rafflesians
...Fuel the promethean flame�

Peer mentorship in RJC � leaving a legacy.

Proposed is a peer mentorship programme that is very different from systems that have been previously practised. The focus is on a more relaxed volunteer tutoring programme

There are instances where students find it difficult to grasp a topic or subject that their tutor is presently teaching. We all have had a taste of how hard A level topics are. Many students cannot afford tuition classes and CCAs make it difficult to schedule tuition on a regular basis. This system will give them a solution to their academic problems.

The machinery - The names and contacts of volunteers will be put up on the school intranet or on the notice board. Volunteers can sign up and withdraw from the programme at any time. . Volunteers will be assigned subjects that they feel comfortable in tutoring, so as to provide optimum assistance. Their teachers will then verify the ability of the volunteers to teach.

Students who feel that they require assistance can approach these sources to obtain this list of available volunteers. The arrangements can then be made between the students and volunteers. The volunteers, however, are obliged to tutor a student for a stipulated period of time � say 1 week, 1 month, 3 or 4 months � which should be agreed on by the volunteer and the student mutually.

The rationale behind this programme is simple. After the A levels, most graduated Rafflesians have at most 8 months of vacation or 2 years of National Service. Also, there are many Rafflesians who go overseas for higher education and come back for long periods of vacation. Surely, this flexible system will allow them to arrange to make a difference for the school during these periods of time.


The Rafflesian spirit boasts passion, dedication and service. I really do hope that all of you able, young Rafflesians will do your part in leaving a legacy and strengthening the unity that bind our school.

Contact Vimaljit Kaur at 92714918 to find out more.

Sign up by sending an email with your particulars, contact number and the subject(s) you are comfortable teaching to RforR@hotmail.com

Scepticism and Christianity

Contents:

1) Disclaimer

2) Why do people need religion?

3) Personal history and the stimulus of the Sabah retreat

4) First principles - Is there a God? Brief meta-physical discussion, since I've no training in philosophy/meta-physics.

5) Rebutting the untenable claims and ludicrous beliefs of literalists.

6) Circular arguments and inescapable flowcharts in finding God etc

7) Some fundamental precepts of Christianity - e.g. sin, sex as a sin. This is not a book, merely an essay so a short discussion will suffice.

8) Questioning applied religion - assumptions and interpretation.

9) Goings-on of the retreat, personal reflections, odds and ends

10) Conclusion and further reading

--------------------
NB: The Sabah retreat was conducted by one priest, mostly. He will, hereon, be referred to as "the priest"


1) Disclaimer

Beware, all ye who tread here. Be forewarned that the author of this rambling treatise is no stranger to controversy, that no Sacred Cow is too hallowed for him to eviscerate (or so he'd like to imagine). If you are a staunch, fanatical or fundamentalist Christian (or indeed are strong in any other religion), you may want to give this essay a miss. But if you'd like to explore some issues and follow me in my quest for truth, in the process gaining a better understanding of your religion, even, perhaps you'd like to read on and hope you don't get lost in the interminable passages. The author believes in the Socratic method of finding truth, so questions galore will you find. But then Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock...

Due to the wide nature of this essay, I may not have the time or ability to deal with all subjects as best as I'd like, and I totally avoided others - Creation *cough* 'Science' *ahem*, say and the Immaculate Conception. Readers are encouraged to try some of the suggested sites which I found very helpful in writing this essay. I tried to exercise some form of essay discipline but the sheer wealth of material I jotted down � and the amount of research I did for this was just too overwhelming (and no one wanted to help me edit it too � humph).

If you want to try to bog me down with circular and intricate arguments, you are welcome to try. I'll entertain you, if I have the time. If you want me to quote scripture to support some of my statements - well, I could have laced this essay with them more extensively, but then this essay would be twice its already unwieldy length, so. Some parts may leave points unsaid, or be easily rebutted, but when the essay is read as a whole, everything should (I hope!) come together.

And for those who want to cry blasphemy, well, here�s a thought for you:

"Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if he is as little as that, he is beneath it." - Mark Twain


2) "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. " - Voltaire

Why do most societies and cultures, at least those that haven't advanced to a certain level of sophistication, have a form of religion? Religion fulfills a certain visceral need in all of us. Our mystical, spiritual side; the side that just wants to surrender and release all our burdens to a greater being; the side that believes, and wants to believe, in superstitions. There is something seductive and comforting about the idea of not being alone in this world, of Life and Creation having some mysterious significance.

What's in it for the individual? Besides filling unsaid needs, religions usually promise a host of other benefits. Ultimately, most people practice a religion because of the benefits that will accrue to them - eternal life, worldly success, salvation from the fires of hell and the like, though the appeal may be unconscious. Doing good isn't recommended only for its own sake - to sweeten the pot, boons are promised to those who follow certain rules and laws; people are urged to engage in ritual deprivation so that they will be rewarded many times over in the afterlife (a kind of hypocrisy, really). See: 2 Corinthians 9, verse 6: "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully" Without such inducements, the number of adherents would probably be substantially lower.

So, do people do good things and believe in God because they truly do, or only because if they don�t they will burn in Hell forever? And do those who believe because they were brought up to, and never did question or truly understand their faith still get the perks and fringe benefits of believing in the Right God?


"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx

I was outfield one day when I suddenly realised how true Marx�s observation was. Religion is addictive, it may lead you to dumb things, it creates a vicious circle of dependence, the more you consume of it the harder it is to wean yourself it, the more you use it the more you need it to function, and the consumer�s happiness is dependent on an external good (as in product, not beneficial agency). It is soothing, but it controls you even if deep down inside you know that it is bad for you.

So why are drugs illegal in most places, but not religion?


3) Me and Religion


"The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. " - Robert Ingersoll


It could be said that I was brought up Christian. My family never went to Church, and my father is a free thinker, but my mother did buy some books and give me some form of instruction. However, after I emerged from the unthinking acceptance of childhood, I began to have doubts, and so I suppose I was a semi-believer. The influences of Humanism resulted in me enquiring even in areas where normal people ceased to enquire, and accepted what they were told unthinkingly. Areas like religion.

I am not one to accept what I am told tamely. For example, Tim asked me once why I like to rail against the proscription of homosexuals, and if I was one. I am not � not all of the suffragettes were female, and did the anti-apartheid movement consist only of blacks? I do not see why people whose only crime has been to be born a certain way should be discriminated against and labelled unnatural, while others who deliberately pervert the normal course of nature are let go scot-free. Put another way: Would anyone worship a God who advocated the murder of unbelievers and apostates, cheating other people, heedless fornication, the pillaging of the earth, hating everyone, larceny, perjury, fratricide, parricide and more? I think most people, Satanists notwithstanding, would rather go to hell than worship such a god. Granted, conservative Christianity is not intolerant on this scale, but I trust you, gentle reader, see my point.

I�d heard about this Sabah retreat for a while - since 1999, when Tim went. He told me it was very good, and though I had my doubts, I finally decided to go this time, in March 2003, and indeed, the retreat was beneficial to me, but not in the way most participants believed. It really opened my eyes to a lot of issues and forced me to examine many beliefs that I�d been holding for a while, and in the aftermath of the retreat, I feel cleansed and free. People went to renew their faith; I lost mine, pretty much, and feel all the better for it. The fuzzy undergrowth in my head has been cleared, mostly. Timothy�s father was saying I�d be buying a lot of books after I came down from the Mountain to learn more about my faith, and that I�d experience a lot of changes. Indeed I will buy some - if books on agnosticism and atheism were easier to find in the shops, and I have become a great deal more sceptical!


4) Some Basic Questions

Does God exist?

Meta-physics is really not my area of interest or expertise, but to those who say that nothing can come from nothing � where did this God come from then? You cannot apply the �nothing can come from nothing� rule but conveniently not hold your God to this same criterion, that would be disingenuous. If God can be eternal, why can the Universe not be so?

Blaise Pascal's Wager

A proposition sometimes offered to atheists and agnostics, it goes:

(1) If you believe in God and God exists, you have a chance to gain everlasting life and happiness after death.
(2) If you believe in God and there is no God, you have lost nothing.
(3) If you don't believe in God and God does exist, you have lost everything and you will suffer infinite torture in Hell after death.
(4) If you do not believe in God, and there is no God, you have gained nothing. Therefore, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God and everything to lose by not believing.

And so this is often quoted as a compelling argument for believing in a God. However, there are several flaws here:

- Which God do we choose? If we choose the wrong God, we will "have lost everything and suffer infinite torture in Hell after death" Since there are so many Gods, choosing no God is almost as good as choosing a God at random
- If you believe it is safer to believe in a God and do so solely because of that, do you really think you'll get all the benefits?
- You lose a lot if you believe in a God and there is none. Consider the amount of energy people fritter away on religion. How about those who orientate their whole lives towards "God"? Then they have lost their whole life

Science and Religion

The advent of Science in recent times has inevitably led to a corresponding decline in the fortunes of Religion. When Science can explain how we were created, we no longer need to attribute (or blame) it on a God. Indeed, some claim that Science is now our new Religion. Theists love to bash science, and claim that it cannot explain a lot of things - they dispute the Theory of Evolution, for example, and ask what could have come before the Big Bang - surely something cannot have come out of nothing?

However, Science is most assuredly not a Religion, and was never meant to explain everything. Science gives us a way of looking at the world, but it does not purport to explain every single mystery - it only endeavours to. So what if there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution? Its name alone gives you a clue - it is but a Theory. Darwin never claimed that it was perfect, or could explain everything, but today most have come to a conclusion that Evolution was generally responsible for our existence.

With regards to what came before the Big Bang - just because you cannot explain something does not mean that you have to attribute it to God. In Ancient Times, lightning was thought to be from the Gods, as no one knew how it came about, but now we know better. A few years ago, some Hindus in Singapore got very excited because the statuettes of one of their Indian elephant-headed Gods miraculously started �drinking� milk, and believed that the God was drinking the milk even though everyone knew that what was actually happening was that the stone the statuettes were made out of was absorbing the liquid.

Just because we do not know something now does not mean that we will never know it. Therein lies the promise of Science. Religion, on the other hand, claims to explain everything, or at least most religions do. There lies its folly, for the flaws and contradictions inherent in any religion are its doom. If something promised by a Religion is patently false, but is claimed to be patently true, then how can the Religion be true? Of course, apologists and fundamentalists try to temporise, to dissemble, evade, ignore the question, offer fallacious, disingenuous and misleading arguments, change the question, bash straw men, poison the well or employ their last recourse - say that faith is needed and that non-believers will never see or understand (or imagine or hallucinate, rather) - when in fact their faith creates the god, but those with unclouded vision can see the truth.

5) "And you shall make it this way: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits." - Genesis 6:15


"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. " -- Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)


Even when I was still relatively secure in my faith, I gave short shrift to the literalists - those who believe that scripture is infallible and is to be interpreted literally. Or at least literally where it doesn't sound totally ludicrous and/or makes daily life impossible. Their interpretations of doctrine seem to be oh-so-convenient - some parts are read literally and some figuratively, and the interpretations conveniently fit their right wing fundamentalist agenda; for example, many fundamentalist Christians in the USA support the death penalty, but we can find plenty of verses in the Bible condemning killing (but then, plenty more where God killed the enemies of the Israelites).

Perhaps the most explicit of the passages proclaiming Biblical inerrancy is this: 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. " Of course we could posit that this passage is false, and so are all the others for Biblical infallibility, but for the sake of argument we won�t. Now we shall see how this is most untrue.

Translation and transcription

Literalists believe that scripture is infallible because it was either dictated to the human writers, or that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit while writing it and so were unable to make any mistakes. The more progressive sorts see, on the other hand, that there have been many avenues for errors to creep into scripture. Let us assume first, for the sake of argument, that the original scriptures were perfect and error-free. Now, almost 2000 years have passed since the New Testament (to say nothing of the Old Testament) was committed to writing. The originals have been lost, so we know of what they said only because copies were made. Assuming that the whole thing is not a forgery, consider how many times the texts have been translated and transcribed throughout the ages. People aren't perfect and the people making the transcriptions certainly weren't. Who's to say errors did not creep into the sacred texts along the way? And the meaning of original texts often gets lost during translation, so can we assume the interpreters translated the text correctly, or managed to retain the multitudes of meanings and nuances in the texts? Literalists might say that the Holy Spirit filled all translators and transcribers, but then why are there so many versions of the Bible?

Editing and personal bias

Mechanical copying and transcription aside, there's also the problem of the editor. Who decided what was to be included in the Bible? The current texts we have are only a fraction of the thousands of books from Jewish and Christian tradition. Who decided what books to include? The books that are traditionally included in the Bible themselves refer to other books like the Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13). Scholarly analysis, too, has found that some parts of the Bible are missing. To even look at the first 4 books of the New Testament would be to see that even the Apostles, supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote from their individual viewpoints, with their individual prejudices, and that they contradicted each other. Lastly, there is overwhelming evidence that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) were written by more than one author, since there are, among other things, two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5) and two creation stories in Genesis.

There is also the matter of personal bias, which inevitably creeps into media as they are transmitted, translated or transferred from one form to another.

Context

Why should we read the Bible in context? Believers often claim that others are quoting their texts out of context, but often they themselves are not following their rules. The texts were written at a specific time for a specific group of people for a specific purpose. This is especially evident in the letters of Paul to specific groups - why did he write separately to the Ephesians, Colossians, Corinthians and others, if what he was writing was meant to apply to everyone? Why not just write one letter to everyone (and to posterity too)? (This ignores the question, too of why we should follow what St Paul said. What makes his opinion and judgment as infallible and sacred as God's? His letters are just commentaries. I respect his opinion but reserve the right to form my own) That is the reason why much of the Old Testament does not apply to Christians today. Why the need for targeted scripture? The Ancient Hebrews would not have been able to comprehend the concept of a world being created over billions of years, and you wouldn�t tell people in the 11th century AD about nuclear bombs, would you? They�d think you were mad, or worse - stone you for being a witch.

On interpreting the Bible literally

Now, since some people are so fond of following the Word of God wholesale and without thinking, let's look at some areas.


1. Dogs

Man�s best friend lives in many of our homes today, providing love and companionship. Yet, dogs are repeatedly condemned in the Word of God!

A dog is compared to:

Male Prostitutes - Deuteronomy 23:18: You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God for any vow. For even both these are hateful to the LORD your God.

Villainous Enemies - Psalms 22:16: and You have brought Me into the dust of death. For dogs have circled around Me; the band of spoilers have hemmed Me in, piercers of My hands and My feet.

False Christians (Possibly) - Philippians 3:2: Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision party. [Ed: Was such an injunction ever more clearly spelt out?]

Dogs are made out to be disgusting:
Proverbs 26:11: As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Ugh. That�s sufficient evidence to stay away from them, ain�t it? Even though we�ve never seen dogs eating vomit, if the Bible says it, it must be right.

Perhaps worse of all, Dogs are barred from Heaven:
Revelations 14 -15: Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city. But outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and makes a lie.

Oh dear. How can we get out of this predicament?

Perhaps the word 'dog' is used metaphorically. Right. If that is the case, why are other parts of the Bible so conveniently interpreted literally, and not metaphorically, even when the literal meaning is against the message of love that the New Testament preaches?


2. Slaves and Masters

Ephesians 5:6: Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ;
Colossians 4:1: Masters, give to your slaves what is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in Heaven. (Note: Masters are not asked to free their slaves)

This comes from the New Testament, the revised Word of God (is that not already proof that the Word of God is not Eternal and Unchanging? Why can't he make mistakes too?), so we can assume that Slavery is permitted! The Declaration of Human Rights is thus Blasphemy since it condemns what God expressly allows!

Perhaps Paul only meant these instructions for the Ephesians and the Colossians respectively, as he knew that if he told the slaves to rise up, and the masters to free them, because God didn�t condone slavery (having changed his mind since the Old Testament), social upheaval would result and the nascent Christian movement would surely be eradicated by the Romans.


3. Husbands and Wives

Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

There. Wives are to be lorded over by their husbands. True, the husbands have to love them, but ultimately the husbands are the ones in charge and the wives have to be obedient. Was Man made to dominate Women, then?

I read a tract a while back while neatly reconciles this: "Ephesians is not a letter written to Western marriages! It is a letter written to Christians who were living in a culture where marriage was a type of slavery. Young teens were wedded to middle-aged men in order to bear them a legal heir. It is difficult for us to imagine the level of degradation and hopelessness these young wives must have experienced... perhaps more than the slaves. Paul was not intending to set up gender hierarchy in marriage in these passages any more than he was endorsing slavery by encouraging slaves to submit to their masters. He was simply referring to the slavery and male headship that was already a part of their secular culture."

Why can't more people be willing to read things in their wider socio-historical context?


4. Homosexuals

Now, most Christians worth their salt will condemn people with alternative sexual orientations, although most of these seem to have been created this way by the putative God. The fact that for homosexuals to attempt to live heterosexually would be as much of a sin and as unnatural as for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals does not occur to them.

A close study of the Bible, reading it in both its spirit and its wider socio-historical context, leads many to conclude that homosexuality per se is not condemned, only:

"(1) homosexual rape
(2) the ritual homosexual prostitution that was part of the Canaanite fertility cult and at one time apparently taken over into Jewish practice as well; and
(3) homosexual lust and behaviour of the part of heterosexuals.

On the subject of homosexuality as an orientation, and on consensual behaviour by people who possess that orientation, it is wholly silent." (http://www.godlovesfags.com/bible/interpretation.html)

The case against homosexuality seems to rest on several phrases from the New Testament (I could consider the Old as well, but I'm too much of a windbag as it is already, and anyway much or all of it was nullified with the First Coming)

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. "

Notice that the key word here is 'nature', translated from the Greek "phusis", which refers to a person's nature. We can thus conclude that what is condemned is not homosexuality per se, but homosexual practices indulged in by normally heterosexual people. Indeed, some Roman cults involved rituals with homosexual acts, where normally straight men had to mount other men. That indeed is an abomination, but not natural homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, "

The word that has been emphasised has been variously translated, in various editions of the Bible, as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. This very fact is enough to cast doubt on the meaning of the original Greek.

There are also plenty of secular arguments about homosexuality being natural, but I will not go into them here. Suffice to say - if something is natural, why should it be condemned? More likely that this is the work of prejudiced homophobes who, reacting naturally against something they did not understand, decided to claim that the Divine Being disliked homosexuality (or imagined that he was as ignorant as them).

Again, why is what Paul said taken to be the Word of God? Prophets contradict each other all the time, so whom are we supposed to follow, then?


5. The Song of Songs

We have here a most interesting specimen. Hard core pornography in the Bible!

1:13: "he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. "
4:5: "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. "
7:7: "This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. "

A more fervent and ringing endorsement and celebration of sex never did exist.

Now, those apologists who dare to tackle this topic instead of leaving a deafening silence (and for that they are to be commended) claim that this whole book is referring to Christ's relationship with the Church. I wonder if even they are convinced, as this takes a marvellous leap of the imagination and of faith which could only have come from formulating the explanation after the conclusion had been reached. I might also add that this is the Song of Solomon - it was written a few centuries before Christ came. Now, if this XXX-rated book can be interpreted so imaginatively, what is to stop other parts of the Bible - less explicit and more vague, I might add - from being read likewise? Why can't people accept that this was just a homily Solomon composed after a vigorous bout with one of his mistresses?

6. Noah's Ark

Here is something the literalists can most assuredly not escape from. We are told that Noah and his family gathered at least 2 from each the species of animals into his Ark, and that they survived for 40 days and 40 nights in it.

Now, the estimates for the number of land species alone range from 6 million to 30 million. Further, fish and other marine organisms are sensitive to changes in salinity , pH and temperature, so most would have to be stored on the Ark. Could you store 12 million animals in an Ark? How about with food - and Koalas, for example, only eat Eucalyptus leaves so they wouldn't be able to feed off the main food supply, water and climate control (for the Polar Bears, among others)? Consider that the dimensions given for the Ark give a volume of 43,006 cubic meters. Assuming that we take the lower estimate of 6 million species, that gives each animal a box with sides of 15 cm. Perhaps in DNA form that'd be possible, but that's almost as silly as believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How about gathering all the species of animals? Ah, maybe God told them all to go to the site of the Ark. Right. Mass stampedes of animals and a veritable zoo at Noah's doorstep would have alarmed no one, I'm sure.

Now about the flood. The 40 days and 40 nights of flooding supposedly covered the tops of all mountains. Mount Everest is 8,848m tall, so to cover it in 40 days of rain you'd need 9.21m of rain falling per hour. Whoa. Would the water pressure not crush the Ark like a tin can? Even assuming the Ark was protected - where did all this water come from and where did it go to later? And how come the massive weight of this water did not warp the ocean floors and the former land?

How about after the flood? Can you imagine re-establishing an entire species from just 2 animals? The inbreeding would quickly lead to the animal going extinct. And there�s the question of the dead animals - we don't see a sudden spike in the fossil record at a certain time.


7. The Age of the Earth

I have no wish to go too deeply into this. Suffice to say that, when presented with overwhelming evidence, those who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old like to claim that the scientific constants (like the freezing point of water and the speed of light) may not have been the same always, that when God created the Earth he made it look old on purpose, or that scientific methods of dating have been proven wrong sometimes.

Now, just because Carbon dating and the like have been proven wrong before does not mean that they are inaccurate. A failure rate is always present, so just because dating gives the wrong result 1 out of a 100 times does not mean that it is wrong 100 out of 100 times. Further, most of the dating errors were discovered by scientists checking the results of their work � something theists often neglect to do. By the same logic, I could say that since God has been proven wrong before, and his word has been proven fallible et al, he is always wrong, or that he doesn't exist. Humph. And the suggestion that the scientific constants haven�t always been constant sounds like a flimflam explanation borne out of sheer desperation.

And as for God creating the Earth to look old - we can also propose that this God created the Earth 2 seconds ago and implanted all the memories we have into our minds.


A short list of Biblical Contradictions:

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill. "
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. "

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works. "
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. "

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent. "
Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. "

James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. "
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham. "

II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. "
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. "

Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. "
Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. "

Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. "
Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. "

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. "
II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. "

Matthew 2:1: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, " (Ed: Herod died in 4 BC)
Luke 2:1-2: �And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) � (Ed: Judea only came under direct Roman Rule in 6 AD)

Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Matthew 27:46: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? "
Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. "
John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. "

I trust that that is more than enough to convince anyone that the Bible is not infallible. Could a Perfect God have written such an Imperfect Bible? Incidentally, one explanation offered for contradictions in the first 5 books of the Bible is that 2 versions existed originally, and one person reconciled the two and combined them, ergo the discrepancies.

With such an imperfect Bible, is it safe for anyone to rely on its word as the supposed Word of God, infallible, eternal (when he has changed his mind so often) and totally accurate? I think not.

In JC 1, we had lessons on Thinking Skills, and some propositions were posited to us, urging us to question:

It is in the newspapers, so it must be right.
It is in the Bible, so it must be right.
Lee Kuan Yew says it, so it must be right.

Food for thought, indeed.

I suspect the reason why most literalists cling on so stubbornly is that they have built in their minds a whole fortress of thoughts and beliefs about their religion around the cornerstone of Biblical infallibility. Remove it, and they will be incapable of preventing the whole edifice from crashing down around them. So even faced with undeniable proof of the fallibility of the Bible, cognitive dissonance ensues and they resort to arguments and explanations so ludicrous that only a 6-year-old child - or a convinced literalist - could believe them.


6) Disingenuous arguments - being trapped by the circular logic of religion

Let us examine some Catch-22 situations in religion.

Finding God

People often ask how to find God, and the answer given is frequently that if you search for him sincerely, you will find him (or rather, he will find you). This passage was quoted to me: Jeremiah 29:13-14 - "You shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart. I will be found of you". From there, it is but a simple step to concluding that if you can't find God, it must be because you aren't looking hard enough, or with all your heart.

There are many assumptions here (among them being that there is a God and that he wants to be found, and that he will let himself be found - basically that this passage is the infallible and eternal word of God), but the problem is that there is no escape route! If someone is not touched or found by God, he can be told that he is not looking hard or sincerely enough. He can then spend his entire life searching and die a broken, disappointed man. Hell, I can make up my own God, or use a pre-existing one - Baal, say, and insert this clause into my Holy Text. Then my adherents will be locked in forever! How fortuitous. For those very strong in their faith, on the other hand, they will "feel" the presence of my "God" psychosomatically, due to their mind conjuring up mirages and will feel vindicated. Their faith will lead to their perceived existence of my God being a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Getting God to work through you

Another instance of this fallacy can be seen in an argument I had with Timothy about whether homosexuality was abhorred by God. I cited instances where, even under Church programmes including praying, homosexuals were unable to change their sexual orientations. He dismissed these instances, claiming that it didn't work because the priests were "doing it wrongly", or trying to "cast out the demon wrongly". So it is impossible for a gay to become straight if the praying et al is done correctly - while the criterion for whether the praying is done correctly is that of the gay person becoming straight. A wonderfully circular argument, if you ask me. God is supposed to understand our prayers, and in other instances, we do not tell him HOW to do what we need, just what we need. We are supposed to just pray, and let God do all the work, so how come we need to do the rituals correctly? When you go to a carpenter you tell him what sort of chair you want, but you do not tell him how to construct the chair and poke your nose into his work. He knows how to do it better than you do.

On faith

Adherents of religions are frequently told to have faith. With faith, nothing is impossible. There is a problem with this argument, however. Faith means belief and trust in something. However, one can have faith in many things. I can have faith that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, that NASA didn't really visit the Moon, or that Jews are evil and were behind the September 11th attacks, or even that God is a rabbit. What makes religious faith so different from other types of faith, apart from the traditional air of sanctity given to it?

What is needed is vindication of faith. If that is not present, how do we know what we have faith in is true? I could come up with my own religion, and exhort adherents to have faith, and they would be worshipping a false god all the way.

What we need, then, is the divine spark. The Godly touch to know that the generalities are correct (and who cares about specifics? Let theologians argue till thy kingdom come) - a vindication of faith. A spark which many believe has come, but many more have never felt.

7) Fundamental Precepts

Sin

I was lead to believe, at the retreat, that Sin was singularly the most important thing in (Catholic) Christianity. Perhaps that isn't strictly true, but definitely it seems that Sin is grossly overrated.

The appeal of asceticism in religion, that God wants us to feel bad, probably stems from people�s assuaging of their guilt, and perceived building of self-virtue through self-flagellation. The worse you feel, the more God will reward you in the afterlife! The priest said that suffering was good as it would orient you towards God. To this I reply: How about those who despair, curse �God� and turn the other way? Why does God like us to suffer, if he is so good, kind and merciful? Could it be that he is sadistic?

Sin is a fact of life. If you want to survive in the Modern (or even the Ancient world), it is necessary to commit some form of sin, especially in the fields of business and politics. To do other would to be trampled upon. For example, when people ask questions, we usually respond with a degree of tact. Another name for that would be "lying" - a form of sin. "These six things doth the lord hate: Yea, seven are an abomination unto him... a lying tongue... a false witness that speaketh lies" - Proverbs 6:16,17,19. It is also written by David, "I hate and abhor lying" - Psalms 119:163. But how about when colleagues or friends tell us to tell callers looking for them that they aren�t around? Even monks, living in communities, have the potential for sin. Unless one retreats to a cave and lives as a hermit, it is almost impossible to live sin-free - with the Church's broad definition of Sin, that is.

Perhaps even harder to escape - Original Sin. Even when babies have just been born into the world, they have already been tainted by Original Sin.

Let us step back and examine the boundaries of Sin. How are we to know what is sin? Subjective and flawed human interpretations of Holy Text aside, let us look at Natural Conscience. Now, we are, almost all of us, born with an endowment of Natural Conscience. For Christians, let's say it came into the race when our ancestors partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we imbibed the knowledge present in the fruit, then would we not know what is sinful, and what isn't? In many societies, polygamy - both polyandry and polygyny - is practised, and in some African tribes, free sex is the norm. Homosexuals are highly valued in some societies for, with no children of their own to take care of, they can aid in the parenting of others' offspring. Now, it can be argued that social norms have distorted the Natural Conscience. So if we give this argument the benefit of the doubt, we can still see that in babies, sexual instincts are present. Some male babies are born with erect members, and some female ones lubricating, and one reason why swaddling is so popular is that it stops babies from touching their gonads - something that comes naturally to them. If that is the case, why is "self-abuse", something eminently and obviously natural, so condemned?

The priest proclaimed that, however good a life you try to live, unless you have divine help, it is impossible to lead a sinless life. And I agree, for with his Universal, Puritan, all-encompassing definition of Sin, it would be impossible to even breathe without sinning! For it seems to follow human, congenital, totally natural desires is to sin, and all along we are already burdened with Original Sin. Isn�t following our Natural Conscience (implanted into us when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and following the Golden Rule and its corollaries is surely insufficient! Methinks that it is best not to focus too much on inevitable, omnipresent sin but instead to concentrate more on moderating the sin and being a positive force.

But why is Sin so bad? If it does not destroy or control you, or hurt others, what is so bad about a moderate amount of �sin�, especially since we are all tainted already by Original Sin? We are told that God hates Sin, but not why. In fact, Sin humanises us.

It is necessary to sin somewhat to survive in the real world, and if someone has such an obsession with eradicating sin, that person will lose all sense of perspective, and this obsession will destroy him. Perhaps that is the greatest sin. We were told, too, to dig out the roots of our sin, and the priest gave the analogy of grass growing in a field - if you just trim the grass, it will grow back. I counter: If the grass is sin, imagine that the field is a person - if you dig out the roots, the field will erode and the place will become a desert. Are we enslaved by sin? More like enslaved by religion.

In summation, I found this quote very meaningful: God and Christians are analogous to an abusive husband and his wife. The husband beats the wife relentlessly, but has instilled such fear in the wife that she cannot possibly conceive of her husband being wrong. Thus, she believes that it is her fault that she is being beaten, and that her husband has no other recourse. This is not tolerated in today's society, but, when God does it, it's perfectly alright. This is what Christians who accept the belief of Hell do to themselves. They've been brought up to fear God from birth. This fear forces them to accept the completely illogical and unbacked statement that God is perfect. Thus, whenever they question the existence of Hell and how just it can be, the leash of God�s perfection tightens around their necks. They simply recite the above mantra and put all the blame on themselves, absolving God of all responsibility for his actions, allowing them to live comfortably with their illusory belief in the biblical God being perfect.

Accepting the Word

Christianity is founded on the idea of Love - God loved us so much, he sent his only Son down to die for us. Whoever believes in him will receive Eternal Life. So, a question comes up - what about those who don't? In the deepest heart of Africa reside pagan tribes which have never been visited by Missionaries. So when they die, they will not be able to receive Eternal Life - just because the news never got to them? Even when people have been preached too, they may not believe, as there is no compelling reason for them to. Perhaps what the missionaries say sounds like the words of Snake Oil salesmen (and who believes them, anyway?) - what makes one so different from another, and which faith should they believe in, then, with so many clamouring for their souls? Or how about those who want to believe, but who are never touched by Divine Grace and die bitter and cynical? Or even people in religions which punish apostates - some with death, even, resulting in the rate of conversion being low due to the fear of punishment? Is it fair to all of these people?

God is good

A generally accepted notion is that God is good. A cursory observation of the world will show that this does not seem to be the case - misery is widespread. This is explained off with reference to quotes from scripture, and various excuses, that Evil comes from Man through his free will, God is trying to mould people, misery is good for the character, the Universe being God�s creation and not his plaything and so on. However, how can the deaths of innocent people in natural disasters, say, be justified then? God is good, God is merciful and God is kind, after all. If we take the view that God should not intervene in his creation, then why are there still so many instances of supposed miracles? Or why, indeed, has God even appeared in this world, to mess around with it? Even if he does want to appear, it is suspicious that he chooses such indirect and doubtful means to do so. And how about the Evil supposedly arising from the hearts of men? Many people become �evil� because of their circumstances - poor neighbourhoods tend to have higher crime rates, say, so this �evil� does not really come from men, but from what happens to men, since most people are born good.

When good things happen, we are supposed to praise God. If bad things happen, we are supposed to do the same. But why should we praise someone who is doing bad things to us? The logic behind this is ultimately very fishy. Why should it not be the other way around?

If God is so good, why do we have a Vengeful/hateful God who urges genocide (and this after �thou shalt not kill�):

Exodus 34:17: I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you. Tear down their altars; smash their sacred pillars, and cut down their sacred poles.
Genesis 7:4: For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. [Ed: Even the surely guiltless children?]

Specifically, it seems the Unchanging, Eternal God makes himself out to be spiteful, vindictive, cruel and sadistic in the Old Testament.

Perhaps the notion of God being good can best be rebutted simply and succinctly in the Riddle of Epicurus.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


God is perfect

God is supposed to be perfect, all knowing, eternal, infallible and the like. If that is the case, then why is his creation, the Universe so imperfect? Just one example would be extinction - if the Earth was created perfect, then species needn�t die, need they? Or how about the supposed Great Flood?

God repenting as he has made a mistake: Genesis 8:21: �I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. �

Jesus doubting God: Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Many other examples can be found in the Bible. Just look.


8) Christianity as interpreted by Man

Since I was at a Catholic retreat, the thoughts and reflections below will inevitably by somewhat biased towards (or against, if you prefer) Catholic doctrine and practice.


Ave Maria

A common accusation levelled at Catholics by other Christians is that they are obsessed about praying to Mary. Catholics might protest, but a casual observation of their method of prayer puts paid to their protests. When Catholics wield their Rosaries and start praying, the amount of prayers to the Virgin Mary outweigh those to the Holy Trinity combined, due to the former being recited in a decade. Hell, maybe it's not a Trinity after all, but a Holy Quartet. What I want to know is, why is appealing to Mary to intercede so important? The Son was supposedly sent to Earth to die to breach the gap between the Father and his creations. So why is the additional help needed? And why is so much time devoted to it? As far as I know, in fact, nothing in the Bible exhorts believers to pray to Mary, and if the Bible is the Eternal, Unchanging and Complete Word of God, it takes a Catholic not to see that we have a problem here. John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, �I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.�"

Besides the unseeming obsession with praying to the Virgin Mary, Catholics also have a whole host of other rituals and practices that other denominations frown on. Now, it's not good for a religion to stay still and not adapt to the times, but some people take the Bible as the eternal and infallible word of God, so addenda are reviled - someone once told me that she decided to stop being a Catholic because "they practice a lot of rubbish that isn't in the bible", and you should have seen my former superior ranting about how Catholics are wrong to pray to Mary.

Sin

All the sermons we got were about Sin, so it seems that Sin is one of the most important concepts in Catholicism. Somehow, it seems to me that instead of forbidding everything that is not expressly allowed, the Church should allow everything that is not expressly disallowed.

Give me chastity and continence, but not yet - Augustine of Hippo, later St Augustine

Sexual Sins

It seems that sex is a universal taboo. Probably this is because the puritan and ascetic side of us grimaces whenever we enjoy ourselves - what feels good is not good. Isn't sex totally natural? The birds and the bees partake in it with no thought of Sin. Humans are born with sexual instincts - it is as natural a part of us as eating, drinking and sleeping. We were supposedly made as such. If sex was so sinful, then perhaps it was made so appealing as a test - a cruel test, like putting spiders into a jar and waiting for them to kill each other. A test with dubitable motives. But I was always under the impression that he wasn't supposed to test us unduly. If anyone is able to control their sexual desires as well as the priest said we should, then they should take up the cloth! If they�re male, at least.

All sex is supposedly sinful. That is why Jesus Christ was allegedly born of a Virgin, so that he wouldn�t be tainted by the Sin of his mother. On the other hand, sex within marriage is supposed to be permissible, so why could Mary not have been a Virgin? Especially since she was wedded to Joseph. So we see we have a problem, again. This could be solved by accepting that the generally accepted interpretation of Isaiah - �A virgin shall conceive�, actually was meant to read �a young girl shall conceive�, but then this is blasphemous to most. Oops.

The priest was very conservative regarding various sexual sins. He condemned Oral Sex because it didn't lead to babies being conceived. "If God had meant you to have Oral Sex, babies would be born from the mouth". This brought to mind a similar argument bandied around by conservatives when the Wright Brothers were experimenting with flying - "If God had meant for us to fly, he'd have given us wings".

Perhaps most amazingly, he condemned all positions but the Missionary Position. What century he is living in, I don�t know, but this is the 21st Century and to be puritan to that extent is so ridiculous that only Mormons would fain comply. It is no wonder that Catholic Priests need to be single, unlike their Orthodox brethren, for to advocate such unrealistic and puritan practices betrays a severe disconnect from reality that can only come from not having any � nor ever having the chance to have any - experience. Of course, the priest claimed that Catholic priests are not allowed to marry because they need to devote their lives to God, but then isn�t everyone supposed to do that? So everybody should take up the cloth!

Homosexuality and contraception

Of course, any Catholic priest worth his salt would revile homosexuality, and this one was no exception. Homosexuality is unnatural, he said. Sure. Then why has homosexuality been observed in so many species of animals? Or if you abhor comparisons with mere animals, how about vegetarians? Humans were made to be omnivores - you can see it by our tooth structure. Isn't is an abomination, hated by Heaven, for Man to reject the fruits of the earth and indulge in Unnatural Eating Habits? Or how about going to the doctor? If God has seen fit to let you get sick, shouldn't it be left to his will whether you get well? Why pervert the course of nature by trying to defy his will and fill your body with all manner of chemicals, besides? Or how about wearing clothes? We aren't born with clothes, so why should we wear any? Adam and Eve ran around naked in the Garden of Eden the whole day, so that is our natural state. How can we deviate from it?

Contraception is reviled. Why is this so? Apparently it is because it is unnatural and perverts the purpose of sex - to procreate. Ignoring the many examples of modern practices which pervert nature yet are not condemned by the Church, let us consider what happens if contraception is disallowed. Now, consider a couple who are very religious, and do not practice contraception. What happens if they, as normal couples do, maintain a normal physical relationship? It can be seen that the female will conceive endlessly until one of 2 ends come to pass - she dies in childbirth, or she reaches menopause. Somehow, I think the former is much more likely, and that will leave a single, lonely (since he�s not supposed to remarry) father with a gigantic brood to take care of. The children will grow up without the love of a mother, and the father might go crazy. Is not such an infinitely greater sin than simply using a condom? It could be said that the couple could stop copulating, but isn�t marriage a God sanctioned form of release? It is no wonder that most of those who oppose contraception are those who are likely never to have the chance to use it! Anyhow, if God is upset at the sin in the world, and if the sin is increasing with the population of the Earth, then why not use birth control to reduce the amount of sin in the world and make him happy?

Self-abuse and porn

"The history of professional and popular opinion about masturbation has been one of ignorance, pseudo-science, and hysteria" (R.E. Butman in Benner 1985:687-688)

Masturbation, or self-abuse, was also bashed. Supposedly, this is because it defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit, and indulging in it creates a hunger that cannot be stopped - like fuelling a fire. However, in response to the first point, since self-abuse pleases the temple of the Holy Spirit so much, shouldn't it be encouraged? The body itself recognises the need for periodic relief - that is why males have wet dreams. Furthermore, it is but a response to urges we were supposedly created with. As for the second point - perhaps it is not so much as an act of fuelling a fire as of releasing water from a dam; if the dam overflows, good luck to the people in the town below.

Safety valves are in place for a reason. Just witness what happened with the Catholic Priests who cooped everything inside and then went to rape their altar boys. We can also see what happened in the Victorian era, when women went to doctors with "hysterics" and were treated with vibrators to relieve their tension. Of course, it can be said that prayer can overcome the instincts which God has given us, but what of those for whom it cannot - and many of such cases abound?

Of course, finding more dubious evidence to back his case up � since �self-abuse� is not talked about anywhere in the Bible, the priest talked about Onan and how this supposedly showed that masturbation was bad.

Genesis 38:6-10: �And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah's firstborn was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also. �

So YHWH committed murder, and then smote someone else. That aside, I think any unprejudiced reading of the above would reveal that was God was displeased at was not the spilling of seed, but his refusal to impregnate his brother�s widow. If he wants to quote the Old Testament so much, perhaps we should, unlike Onan, impregnate our brothers� widows (all the while ignoring the circumstances in which this habit, gross to modern sensibilities, was practised). Also, following his interpretations, females are free to have fun with their fingers and joy-sticks. I thought the Old Testament was nullified anyway, in any case. To be lazy and quote someone else, �I have no idea why ancient scholars decided to use the story of Onan to condemn masturbation. I can't believe that they didn't understand about levirate marriage � it's all there in print. I'm afraid they were victims of the medieval loathing of the flesh, which taught that spirit was good, body was bad, man was good, woman was temptress, pain was purifying, and pleasure was evil. What a perverted way to look at the world! Those who believe in God should profess that He made all things holy, and pleasure and joy and love are the components of heaven on earth. And though I'm no expert on masturbation (though I do study diligently on a daily basis), I'd say it's a good part of our world. �

Perhaps to conclude, he related an anecdote, of this 70-year-old man who told him that he couldn't stop masturbating, and that he hated himself for doing so. Perhaps he would feel better if he wasn't indoctrinated with a guilt complex.

Peripherally related is the topic of nocturnal emissions, also known as wet dreams. The priest was so hopelessly out of date that he even tried to condemn this!

Deuteronomy 23:10-11: If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.

Well done. Laying aside the question of what �uncleanness that chanceth him by night� actually means, what is a boy to do once he starts having wet dreams, I ask? I wonder what the priests who actually live by these 2 verses do every time that time of the month (or week or fortnight) comes along. Do they have to leave their church buildings and wash themselves and return at night? Or maybe they secretly go to harlots once a month.

And then we have pornography. Personally, I think that it is rather pointless, but if people want to do something in the privacy of their own homes, I don�t see what�s wrong with that. Blue movies were bashed repeatedly, but I find it interesting that Romance Novels weren�t. Where blue films merely have purely carnal content, romance novels corrupt and taint the reader�s notions of love - supposedly a gift of God - by transmogrifying, distorting, mocking and mutating the way real life relationships work. Is that not worse?

To support some of his proscriptions, the priest used the Book of Leviticus to back him up. Thanks. Leviticus is so ridiculous and contradictory that even the Jews don�t follow it. And if he likes it so much, what about the lengthy instructions on rituals and dietary restrictions? If he wants to throw the book at us, I can throw it back at him.

Leviticus 15:19-24: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

Leviticus 21:17-20: Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is broken footed, or broken handed, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken

Perhaps to end sexual sin once and for all, we should follow the noble example of Origen of Alexandria who, determined to not sin sexually, castrated himself. Unfortunately this also disqualified him for sainthood as he was then incomplete (what about circumcision - genital mutilation - then, I ask?). Pity. But then some eunuchs do have sexual desires too and some can be induced to produce a form of ejaculate, so perhaps we can never be free.


Divorce and other attacks on the sacrament of marriage

The institution of marriage is present in all modern societies, but Catholicism seems to place particular emphasis on it.

Marriage supposedly has been sanctioned by God as a union of a male and a female for life. However, looking at the animal world, we can see that the one male partnering one female for life concept is hardly the dominant form of mating. In some human societies, those not swayed and overpowered by the dominant moral paradigm, we can see too that the traditional institution of marriage is not extant. These are not, in and of itself, overwhelming evidence against marriage, but do consider them.

Marriage is supposedly sanctioned by God as an outlet for sexual desires. However, sex in and of itself is a sin, which was why the Mother of Christ had to be virginal. So why not everyone abstains and the whole religion die out? Also, with contraception banned, masturbation forbidden and nocturnal emissions sinful (see above, on the �sin� of spilling one�s seed), where does that leave us? A marriage at a young age which will likely later break down? A marriage at a young age, with the couple having children every few years till the female dies in childbirth, then the male having to purify himself every time he has a wet dream until the day he dies? Praying to God which often does not work? Or is a more likely explanation that he is not as strict about trivialities as he is made out to be?

Peace in marriage was advocated during the retreat. Now, in and of itself, that is not a bad thing but the priest seemed to be advocating totally friction-free marriages. The wife is supposed to submit (read: be a slave) to the husband and the husband is supposed to love his wife. That way, no quarrels will ensue. I disagree - healthy disagreement and quarrels are part of a healthy marriage, for without them, how will effective and sound decisions be arrived at? The priest recommended that men look for submissive wives � a sexist statement if I ever heard one. What�s wrong with spunky women? They�re quite fun. I wonder indeed how people who have never been married can lecture on how a marriage should be lived (me included, but then I merely offer suggestions and opinions, and do not mount a bully pulpit and proclaim something to be Holy Writ)

Divorce is frowned upon. This issue has been a bone of contention in the Catholic Church before - if not for this, England might still be in the Catholic fold. Now, most people get married in their 20s. This is hardly a sufficient time for someone to search for his life partner, but then compromises have to be made - we can't expect people to spend most of their lives searching. Perhaps they believe, at that point in time, that they have found true love. Or peer pressure induces them to get married. So, some years into the marriage, problems crop up. The Church preaches that the holy institution cannot be broken, and that the couple should pray and try to repair their marriage. But what if the couple are not suitable for each other? Or if one has met someone infinitely more suitable for him and has found true love at last? What then? Do the two stay in a loveless marriage? What if prayer and counselling do not work? Surely the Church does not expect the two to waste the rest of their lives together, bound only by peer pressure, moral suasion and religious dictate? I would think that leaving the marriage to continue as a sham would be the greater sin (and that's why I support cohabitation - which is another topic).

On False Gods

Most religions preach that there is only one path to God - their own, and all who don't follow it are screwed. However, there are literally thousands of denominations and religions out there. How are we supposed to know which one to believe in? Do we choose the one which promises the most benefits in the afterlife, or the one which dictates the most self-flagellation, reasoning to ourselves that the more we suffer now, the more we enjoy ourselves later? Can it be that all of them are wrong but one? More likely that more than one are correct, or all are correct, or even, dare I say, that none are correct.

A roommate claimed that if you believed in a false God, you�d know. So why do so many people believe in so many different Gods? Can they all be correct, if most proclaim the rest to be wrong? And how about atheists (I presume if you don�t believe in a real God, you�d know too)? This leads me to the same conclusion as above.

Tim�s father offered another view - you must look at the fruits the religion brings. A true, good God would bring good fruits. So looking at it that way, Buddhism must be the true religion, for it advocates peace and I don�t think anyone has ever killed anyone else in Buddhism�s name. Many atheists lead perfectly virtuous and happy lives, so is not atheism also a true religion (or lack of, rather)? The same could be said of the much-reviled Wiccans, even. Christianity, on the other hand, has resulted in wars, murder, and hate, the Spanish Inquisition and assorted other iniquities.

Christ on the Throne?

Have you heard of the Four Spiritual Laws? Law One says that: "God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life. [Christ speaking] "I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly" [that it might be full and meaningful] (John 10:10)". I find the interpretation for this to be extremely suspect. But let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that he *does* have a plan for our life. We are urged to follow this plan and surrender to the inscrutable divine will. We are to let Christ be on the throne and submit to him in all things.

This idea of servitude rankles me - it sounds like a euphemism for slavery. Is it good to be mindless automatons, zombies controlled by God? If that was our purpose in life, to be puppets with him pulling the strings, then why were we created in the first place? If we should submit to his "plan", then why were we put on this earth? To be expensive, semi-intelligent playthings? The question of free will comes up, and the prepared refrain is that God gave us free will so that we could choose him without compulsion. However, religious representatives tell us to "do this and be happy forevermore or burn in hell for all eternity", so is there really no compulsion or coercion? Furthermore, we are told that our body comes from God, and belongs to God, so whither and wherefore Free Will?

Even putting all our doubts aside, we are told that we were given free will just to have it taken away from us. That sounds like he is putting us here to play with, and test us. Life then sounds like a cruel, inane divine game. A more plausible explanation given to me was that submitting to him, we realise that his plan is the best for our life. Put that way, it doesn't sound like we have a choice. Is submitting to a pre-determined plan and going to a pre-destined fate really what we want?

Also, how do we know just what is in the Plan? Supposedly, if we have accepted him, we will know what to do. But what about the murderers who thought that voices were telling them to kill their fellow Men? What if that was really the voice of God? Who's to say?

I am growing increasingly disillusioned with organised and human-interpreted religion, what with its inconsistencies, hypocrisies, flaws, obvious errors which are glossed over, false promises, contradictions and misleading logic. I wonder if even another Thomas Aquinas would be able to reconcile all the paradoxes, as a reading of some parts of the Summa Theologica didn�t leave me very impressed. Who's to say which interpretation is right, with the number extant? They have proved wrong before, like when the Catholic Church proclaimed the truth of a Gaia-centric universe, justifying it with passages from Scripture, and when it prohibited usury - what if they are wrong again? And if Original Sin has stained Man forever and ever, has not the sins of the Church stained it irredeemably?

Deism

Disillusioned with Organised Religion, Thomas Paine (of "The Age of Reason" fame) followed the philosophy of Deism, which is truly appealing in its precepts.

RELIGION has two principal enemies, Fanatism and Infidelity, or that which is called Atheism. The first requires to be combated by reason and morality, the other by natural philosophy.

The Universe is the bible of a true Theophilanthropist. It is there that he reads of God. It is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the works of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make that we must seek evidence for our belief, and that something is the universe, the true Bible, -- the inimitable work of God.

Contemplating the universe, the whole system of Creation, in this point of light, we shall discover, that all that which is called natural philosophy is properly a divine study. It is the study of God through his works. It is the best study, by which we can arrive at knowledge of his existence, and the only one by which we can gain a glimpse of his perfection.

Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible WHOLE is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what GOD is? Search not written or printed books, but the Scripture called the 'Creation.'

--- Thomas Paine. The Existence of God, A Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists, Paris, circa 1810


9) Six Nights In Sabah

Wherefore Scepticism?

Scepticism is necessary in the realms of religion, where the intangible reigns. For without scepticism, are we to follow gullibly the first religion we come to know of? Most intelligent people desire the truth, and they don't want to live lies, or they might as well worship man-made idols. At the same time, we must try to be sceptical without being contemptuous.

Why does God not come to all who ask for him? He has a long and proven track record of appearing to people - Noah, Moses, the Apostles, Doubting Thomas, St Paul (a vision converted him from a hater of Christians to one himself) Muhammad and others. Why is it that modern day credited manifestations of him and his power are all of events that were ambiguous and not witnessed by a large group, including sceptics? Why does he not resolve the doubts of those looking in vain for him, and lose faith and die cynical and broken - or worse, continue seeking and die deluded? In short, what gives?

It seems to me that as the intelligence and developmental level of peoples and societies goes up, the proportion of people with no religion, who are sceptical about religion or who are just not very devout goes up in tandem. Many of the most intelligent and prominent people in the past century or more have been atheistic or agnostic. The naysayers reply that these people have tried to rationalise God and religion, and so have not found either. But to trust in blind faith in something that might be false would be folly, as I've already shown at length. Real religions are supposed to make people feel fulfilled and touched by God - those who are are jubilant and become very devout, but what about those who aren't? They then inevitably become sceptical, cynical and disillusioned and disavow the existence of worship of God, where more gullible people might be tricked into continuing on their futile path.

Personally, I am half-sceptical. Indeed, Bien Kiat said of me � �He�s a very tough customer. If you can convert him, you will go to heaven. Guaranteed.� (But then he also said that I was �Very intelligent, but very blur and stubborn�, so) During the retreat, I found my scepticism rising till the last day, when it subsided somewhat, but since returning from Sabah, I have found it rising to unprecedented levels.

I want to keep an Open Mind (both ways), for fear of missing something through intransigence. I saw some things - healing, tongues, slaying and the like, but they can all be explained, as belief can work wonders and push the human body to do things not thought possible, though some are harder to rationalise than others. I feel a sense of peace once in a while, and feel twinges and vague emotions sometimes, but it could be a product of my own imagination and hope - my skin positively prickles and crawls whenever I hear my School Anthem being played (from the memories and some degree of pride), and even when the National Anthem is played (though whether this is because of the years of attempted indoctrination, the mysterious substances they put in our drinking water or my disgust and intense emotions at my Slavery I know not).

Agnosticism and faith both have their appeals. On the one hand, I just want to surrender, and not to question. Like Milder, I want to believe (though I don't watch the X-files). At the same time I know, on the other hand, that I could never live with myself believing in a sham, living a lie and wasting my time being a fool. In other words, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate just for the heck of it. Both choices are liberating in their own ways. I was accused of not wanting to open up, and trying to rationalise something that cannot be rationalised, but I think I tried as best I could, and really � the sheer ridiculousness of it all stuns me sometimes and turns me off, and if I didn�t enquire, I might as well join the Raelian sect or Heaven�s Gate.

Mysterious Sessions

Most of the retreat consisted of talks and Praise and Worship, but there were some sessions where the Power was turned on. The Power of mass hysteria.

Many times, the retreatants were whipped up and encouraged to �talk and pray to the Lord�, and a ear-shattering cacophony ensued. People cried. People screamed. People shouted different things at different tempos at the same time. People talked nonsense (�tongues�). All in all, it sounded like what Hell is supposed to be. Or maybe everyone was possessed by demons. I think the Chinese Communist Party would be overjoyed if it could tape a session like that - it�d just claim that this was a Falungong session, and vindicate its branding of it as an Evil Cult.

While trying my best to participate fully in these sessions, hoping in vain that my years of semi-belief would be gloriously vindicated, I couldn�t but help make some observations. The pastor conducting the retreat was skilled indeed. He wore at our resistance throughout the day, yelling diatribes and abuse, planting suggestions and admonishing us, tiring us with long hours, hinting at things, and scheduling Praise and Worship before and after most sessions to soften us up so our resistance would be lower, making us castigate ourselves and each other to implant a sense of shame, and the Spartan environment didn�t help the Rational-o-meters. During the sessions themselves, he manipulated the volume of the microphones, whispered for emphasis so we had to listen more carefully, co-ordinated his actions and words with the band, and the band sometimes played discordantly to stun us or sung the same lines again and again to hypnotise us with their soporific effect.

Somehow, I was put in mind of that case a few years back, when children throughout Japan suddenly went into fits because of a sudden series of bright flashes during an episode of Pokemon. No one blamed Satan then, as I recall.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Not to be outdone by Saddam, the Priest had some Weapons of Mass Destruction of his own up his sleeve, each more powerful than the last, not least in making people cry.

The first was when he got his helpers to lug a giant cross into the prayer hall, and asked all of us to write a letter to Jesus confessing our sins, even dictating how it should go, and then to go to the cross on our knees, prostrate in front of it, tear the letter up and reflect. I could not, in good faith, write the letter he dictated, so the one I wrote was slightly... different, asking for faith, and all through the ceremony I felt nothing.

The second WMD was a forgiveness ceremony, where people had to bathe each other�s feet and pretend that they were bathing the feet of people whom they had a long-standing grudge against. On reflection, I decided that I did not have any outstanding grudges and did not hate anybody, though some degree of dislike is inevitable, so I declined to participate, but it was quite touching to see some of the people taking part in the ceremony, especially when one Brother bathed one Priest�s foot and when one nun from Hong Kong was asked to act as a surrogate for 2 Hong Kong-ers, but bathed their feet back in return and kissed them to boot. 2 of the Priests, however, were not asked to act as surrogates for the ceremony. I guess they weren�t charismatic enough.

On the last full day, the third WMD came out. Well, it wasn�t exactly a WMD, but it was something other than the usual talks, mass, prayer and Praise and Worship � morning meditation. Except that most were sleeping during it.

Crucifixion

The next-to-last WMD that he unleashed came on the last full day. For 40 minutes, we had kneel while holding our arms out horizontally, like we were on the Cross, all the while in front of the Blessed Sacrament and hearing someone from the Music Ministry reading out the 12 Stations of the Crucifixion, with music sung in between each station. The pain was horrible. Now I know a tiny, little bit of what crucifixion is like!

People cried. I sort of cried too, a half-cry with no tears � not because I was overwhelmed by emotion, but because my arms were hurting too much, and a few times the boundary between half-crying and laughter blurred and I laughed, kind of like the times I fall down and, though my tush hurts, I start laughing. I was very tempted to slay myself and end my misery, but during the many times I looked around the room, no one had collapsed, given up or been slain, so I didn�t want to feel pai seh (embarrassed). To distract myself, I started jerking around and swaying wildly � jerking to and fro, back and forward and humping the air, among other things - in some part to redistribute the weight on my knees, which wasn�t that bad really, but more to distract myself from the terrible aching in my arms, especially around the shoulder, and to uncramp the area. I did cheat a little, though, by wiping my sweat 2-3 times, looking around the room to see if anyone had given up, drooping my arms very low on occasion and letting my arms down to massage them once. This went on for at least 15mins, and apparently all this while the priest was looking at me as if to ask, �What is this fella trying to do?�. Others who saw me said after they saw me they felt like laughing, even if they had been about to cry, and some asserted that if not for my antics, they wouldn�t have been able to keep in that tortuous position.

After the whole thing was over, people told me that I was in a trance, and that I looked like a �tan kee� (medium) in a Taoist temple or I had what the priest had referred to as a �Muhammad Ali� spirit in me. Since I was in full control of my actions, was conscious of them, felt nothing inside of me and did not smell, taste, see, hear or touch anything special during that time, I naturally didn�t believe them. How does one tell if one is in a trance anyway? However, they were so insistent in their claims that I suppose there was some modicum of possibility. However, if I truly was in a trance, the fact that it was a Taoist trance doesn�t bode very well, does it? :) Later I asked a priest how someone could tell he was in a trance, and he said that that person had to be pure of heart and had confessed all his sins. That didn�t describe me, so I suppose it wasn�t a trance! Perhaps it was an, err, experience.

Saving the best for last

The priest�s final weapon was powerful indeed. It involved the priests going around to bless people, and by the end of the session between a third to a half of the room had been felled and was out cold on the floor, and some people were running around the room chattering in tongues. I didn�t experience anything, though *shrug* I think I�m condemned :)


It's a miracle! Praise the Lord!

People love to look on the incidences of "miracles" as evidence of Divine touch and presence. In fact, many of them can be easily explained. Also, more than one religion has miracles - what are the implications of this for there being one True religion? Or none, even?

Further, it seems God has become less powerful in recent years. All the miracles attributed to him have been becoming steadily less powerful and observable. Coincidence, or conspiracy?


- Healing

This is a perennial favourite. Notice that most times, the miraculous healing is of a most subjective ailment - pain. Now, as all knows, pain is all in the mind. To a large extent, pain is psychosomatic - if you think you're going to hurt, you will. One could get a hypno-therapist to plant suggestions in your head, and a similar result would be achieved. The power of this placebo effect is recognised by scientists, which is why in drug trials, the control group is always given a placebo. Now, if the promise of a mere drug can dull and deaden pain, imagine what unshakable, firm faith in one's healing can bring?

As for the more visible types of healing, Bien Kiat told me that he saw a show exposing fake Healings, and it was rather shocking how the tricksters managed to fake the regeneration of a hand, gore and all. All in all, I will not totally dismiss this �miracle�, but I must make the observation that we hear so much about those who are healed - but what about those who aren't? Ah, it must be God's will that they are not healed. And that the people who go to faith healers, trusting in His Power and casting themselves at his feet but later sicken and die should die.

- Tongues

From time to time, people will begin spouting gibberish. They are said to have been given the �Gift of Tongues�.

A cursory analysis of the tongues spouted reveals that they follow a certain pattern, the tongues actually consist of a very few words (one I heard just consisted of �Lalalalala�) and that certain words and phrases occur very often. This makes me wonder what they are actually saying, and how extensive their vocabulary is. Perhaps it is just �Praise the Lord�, and if that is the case, this gift is not very good, for what good is a language if your vocabulary is limited? I might as well learn curse words from various languages and then proclaim that I know a million and one tongues!

Cases have been documented, I believe, of people suddenly speaking weird languages when they suffer brain damage. One case I am certain of is of this Chinese scientist who, when he suffered brain damage, suddenly lost the ability to speak in English and reverted to his native Mandarin. In any case, when someone is emotionally overwhelmed, it would not take too much for him to suddenly spout a few nonsensical words and imagine that he was speaking a new language.

Perhaps the simplest explanation for Tongues � possession by demons. Tada. So much for it being a divine gift.

- Slaying

I suppose people�s minds can become overwhelmed by everything, or they experience a sudden release of built-up tension. And they thus collapse when touched by the Priest but my choir junior - a non-believer - told me he got slain at the Festival of Praise at the Indoor Stadium, and my room mate Clarence told me he got slain before the retreat too, so I will accept that Slaying might not be due to personal, internal influences.

- Walking on Hot Coals

This is not a miracle attributed to Christianity, but can be used as an example showing how so-called miracles can actually have a rational explanation.

Basically, people can walk on hot coals yet not get injured because of the Leidenfrost effect. When liquids are placed onto surfaces at high temperatures, they do not vaporise as quickly as one might think because the part of the liquid in contact with the hot surface vaporises and acts as an insulator, protecting the liquid from the heat of the hot surface. Globules of water can thus remain on the surfaces of hot skillets for up to 3 minutes. Now when the coal walkers run across the hot coals, they either wet their feet or, because they are nervous, sweat around their foot area. Thus, when they run quickly across the hot coals, they can escape injury.

- Sights and Sounds during adoration

Nightly adoration was supposed to be the most powerful time of the retreat. People related being healed, feeling various sensations and smelling scents.

Now, adoration was held at odd hours during the night, when the retreatants were dazed, tired from a lack of sleep and disoriented after waking up. They�d have been psyched the day before, and all the proceeding days, and in the quiet of the adoration chamber, who knows what they might have thought they saw?

One woman claimed that, during mass adoration, she smelled roses around the Blessed Sacrament. Bah. The Sacrament was surrounded by bowls of scented oil!

Others claimed that they experienced many things during mass adoration. Perhaps they were short of oxygen, or affected by the mass hysteria and all the psyching. See below also for more on how we were emotionally and psychologically manipulated.


Praise the Lord, ye bright angelic choirs with Holy songs of joy...

During the retreat, there was much Praise and Worship. Most sessions started and ended with Praise & Worship. Indeed I sang so much my jaw hurt from all the unconscious dropping of it - a habit inculcated in my 4 years in the RI Choir.

I've never really liked Praise and Worship. For one, it is musically uninteresting. The simple melodies are short and all sound similar, most Praise and Worship songs sound like Country Music and the songs can be classified into one of 2 groups - happy and sad. All the songs end the same way - by repeating the last lines of the last stanza or chorus. Perhaps what's worse is the gestures - clapping, raising of hands, turning around and jumping (though there was none of the latter in Sabah, perhaps in deference to the Middle Aged people. The tunes were so boring that I started trying to harmonise with them (but not very well) � I never thought I would �degenerate� to the level of Zhuomin and friends!

The priest conducting the retreat scolded people who dislike Charismatic worship, lauding it, but everyone has their own way. What makes raising your hands and clapping to Country Music tunes more virtuous or pleasing to God than wearing hair shirts and standing in the middle of rivers like the Irish monks used to do, Gregorian Chant, sitting alone on a pillar in the middle of the Egyptian desert for 20 years, or flogging yourself like the people who, during the Black Death in the 14th Century, used to go from town to town practising self-flagellation?

I was thinking about the purpose of all the song singing, and the shouting the priest did from his pulpit. The former is meant, through the �fun�, loosening up and relaxation to break down your defences and inhibitions and make you more receptive to the messages preached, and to implant suggestions into your head which you will now be more susceptible to, and the latter is meant to wear your defences down and likewise plant suggestions. The shouting was nothing compared to BMT, though, so I have a degree of acquired immunity to this sort of thing and was happily unaffected (I think). Alternately, the songs and shouting were meant to prepare the retreatants spiritually, so it depends on how you look at it. Probably both answers are correct.

On Polytheism

Some people offered the opinion that all monotheistic religions were acceptable, as they were all worshipping the same god. This logic is rather suspect, as I could start my own religion which would worship one God, but it wouldn't necessarily be a real God. This logic also smacks of discrimination against polytheists - who's to say there isn't more than one God, or that he has only one aspect? To the uninitiated, in fact, Christianity appears to be a religion with 3 Gods - or 3 1/2 in the case of Catholicism.

Besides, I can't think of a monotheistic religion which isn't exclusive - John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". No fervent adherent of a major monotheistic religion worth his salt would tolerate the blasphemous suggestion that he was actually worshipping the same god as those of another faith. So if all of them are worshipping a true God, yet all of the religions are exclusive, then we must assume that there has been a major breakdown in communication between God and his creations. More likely is the fact that, societal development wise, the Primary tier consists mainly of Animistic religions, the Secondary tier of Polytheistic and the Tertiary tier of Monotheistic religions (perhaps the post-Tertiary tier holds but Atheism?).


Luohan Lee

The priest conducting the retreat, whom I have referred to many times, likes to refer to Luohan in his sermons, so some of us called him �Luohan Lee� affectionately.

He bashed some topics merrily, but evaded others. One of countless examples: if murder is bad and we should love our fellow men, what about conscription? As an aside, I really admire the Jehovah�s Witnesses for standing up for their faith even though they have to go to DB for 5 years.

He kept impressing on us that he had a lot of experience and had seen a lot of things, but does that mean he has a monopoly on the truth, as he led us to believe? According to him, this god is rigid and inflexible, and he justified his preaching by taking certain passages from Scripture and then interpreting them as he liked. The ossified beliefs and fundamentalist stances alienated people like me who were not mindless sponges for senseless rhetoric, a pity really.

A roommate and I decided to corner him one night to ask him pertinent questions. Unfortunately, we came away disappointed due to his non-committal, non-intellectual, politically correct answers. Apparently he didn�t look at other religions more than cursorily, yet he was convinced of the superiority of his own, dissembling about how the others were somehow lacking. He claimed that one must search to find the truth, and gave his 2 criteria for a true religion - holiness and love. Which hat he pulled these 2 subjective and contentious rabbits out of he didn�t say, naturally. He said that you must believe - but then belief presupposes God�s existence, so you�re proving something by assuming it - a circular argument. He said what mattered was not doctrine but sanctification - but then the criteria for sanctification seems to be whether someone or something conforms to the doctrine he practices (to him, everything is a sin!). He also revealed that he desired women and wealth too, but he held out for eternal life, something which rather disappointed me and a few others. And in the end, for all his evasive answers, he was still able to preach fierily.

Other priests were a lot more helpful. Most appeared open minded, and the consensus seemed to be - God finds everyone in his own way and in his own time. Well, good for him. If he ever needs me, I�ll be where I always have been. If he doesn�t want me, then I�ll just mind my own business. If he�s so merciful and loving, then why torment people looking for him?

At the end of the retreat. Luohan Lee was asking for testimonies. I was thinking of offering mine, but I didn�t want to be a wet blanket, get stoned or get shouted off by him for being �off point�, so I refrained. Bien Kiat, however, managed to give a testimony while deftly avoiding the issue of religion or �god� so praise be to him :)


Picayune Details

It seems that most people who went were middle aged Chinese - from Singapore, KL, Hong Kong, Miri and Labuan. Before and during the flight there, I was thinking that me and 2 others (one a Raffles Guy GEP) who were born in 1982 were the only Singaporean participants under the age of 40! While flying, it occurred to me that I've been on Ma-laysia Airlines flights so often that I recognised 1-2 of the Air Stewardesses on either trip.

F&N apparently does not wish to unleash its full Alliteration line of Drinks (e.g. Freaky Fruitade) on Singapore - Smashing Strawberry (which tastes like Cough Syrup) and Lucky Lychee are only available in Malaysia. They are all advertised as containing �Real Juice� but most only have Grape Juice. Bah.

Adrian pointed out that from our vantage point on the fourth floor of the Retreat Centre, Mount Kinabalu looked like Mount Doom, sans the Eye of Sauron and the brimstone. And being in the middle of a cloud (when the weather conditions are right) is just magical!

Most of the people who were on the bus I was assigned to send us to the Retreat Centre and back to the Airport were very religious. So religious, that they prayed for even the simplest of things - namely, a bus ride. "We pray that you may keep us safe on our journey to the retreat centre..." This left me speechless. To pray for such a simple thing would be insulting, to say the least. I wonder if any of these people pray before going to the toilet in case a snake comes up the sewage system and nips them while they are sitting on their throne. I would imagine that God isn't a babysitter and we do not need to go to him for every trivial matter, or he wouldn't have put us on this earth.

The vegetables we ate were not bad, the meat less so. The fruit, especially the Sabah Pineapple, was excellent though! Many priests (especially the Indian ones) ate bread at every meal though, so maybe they didn�t like the food (or else we now know why they mostly are quite plump).

I was discussing with one roommate how very religious and devout people can be the most horrible of people - hypocritical, mean and backstabbing. I guess it's Real Life, causing them to rationalise and ignore their actions.

Tim had remarked before that Priests have bad senses of humour, and from the few times I'd heard priests or pastors joke, I got that impression too. Perhaps the reason why they make lame jokes is that they are not supposed to make crude or vulgar jokes - it's sinful to do so!

It seems bass guitarists like genuflecting. And female ones like humping their guitars too :)

�I�m always right� � Elaine. She sounds like my sister!

The Music Ministry people played a song during the Last Dinner, and it was the song that Auntie Mary at Monty�s always listened to! I�ve finally found out that it�s called Jambalaya. And they also played the song used for the Singapore Kindness Movement � I should have known the government would never have composed a new song for the Campaign. Later, one group at another table (rather, floor mat) started singing the Zurangeni (I�ve no idea how to spell it) song that they Malays and Indians in my BMT platoon liked so sing so much. I noticed that they did omit the English lyrics though � �Once the papa met the mama under the mango tree. Then the papa asked the mama, �Will you marry me?�. Then the mama said, �I don�t want�. Then the papa rape the mama under the mango tree.� I related the lyrics to one of the middle aged Chinese aunties, and she was quite scandalised :0

Paul, Timothy�s Uncle, was among those most helpful to me. His efforts seemed to have failed, but I appreciate them, and at least he introduced me to Super Milo � Milo where more than half the cup is filled with Milo powder. Oh, this stuff is potent.

I and some others were at one of the shops near the retreat centre when we saw a male dog nuzzling a female dog, and a drop of liquid fell from its member. Ooh.

Clarence told us that he�s actually featured in the Total Defence commercial that has people in a large group making an arcane symbol near the end. Heh heh.

There were adoration sessions held nightly, but on the first night, my whole room didn�t go due to miscommunication, on the second I fell asleep for most of the adoration, on the third I slept through my alarm, on the fourth I felt like shit for most of the session and on the fifth I was apparently woken up but sat up and went back to sleep, though I have no memory of this at all. I suppose it must be, ah, �God�s Will�.

The priest recalled this email he got, about the importance of not being consumed by work. BUSY - Bound Under Satan's Yoke. How kind of him to offer such a cute acronym. In return, I have a proverb for him - "The Devil finds work for idle hands".


At the airport, I saw the Millennial Edition of the Malaysia Book of Records being sold. I�d always wanted to get this so I can have a picture of the guy who walked backwards, the woman who lived in a room with snakes and the Oldest Man In The World (older, in fact, than the Oldest Person In The World according to the Guinness Book of World Records, but whose claim is recognised only in Malaysia). It was 99 Ringitt but I didn�t mind spending that sum as I was in an impulsive mood. Too bad the book was damaged when I opened it to have a look. At least I saw that there is a record for the first Palm Oil Based Cosmetics (and many other Palm Oil related records too). Malaysia Boleh!

At the airport, too, there was this bookstore with an Islamic section. None of the books had informative blurbs on the back, telling the browser what they were about � especially important since the books were all wrapped up. Instead, the back covers listed the authors� credentials. Bah. There was also a book savaging Evolution, and called Evolutionary Theories �prverted�. Bah x2. Actually I was thinking of getting �Islamic rules on Menstruation and Post-natal Bleeding� but it was 18 Ringitt, so.


The Sabah Song

This was actually supposed to be performed by the Singapore group, but we withdrew at the last minute to avoid offending sensibilities.

To the tune of �Jesus Saves�:
Lyrics by Clarence :)

Father Lee said My People
Come to Sabah
Leave �Sex� Centre
When we come here, find no water
Aiyoyo! should have brought Newater

We thought we were sharing Queen-sized beds
Instead we shared toilets
Although we had a clear, cool wide view
The cow dung stuck to shoes

Chorus:
Monkey see, monkey do
That�s how sin ensnares you
We are healed, blessed and renewed
Jesus saves our people, God bless you

We waited for 72 positions
But we were taught only one *singer kneels*
We stirred and moved when we felt the spirit
Till he said �Hello�

Chorus x2

Other thoughts

It's been a while since I had vigorous debate, and I wish to thank all who engaged me, most notably my room mates :)

If God is looking for us all, then why is there no religion that claims even 40% of the world's population? It seems that the majority of the world is damned.

One reason why this retreat was supposed to be so �powerful� was that there were many people praying and fasting for it and interceding on behalf of the retreatants. That brings to mind the question of why this god requires people to fast and pray to him to work his stuff. If he is so good, kind and benevolent, would he not do the same regardless of the number of intercessors? This all puts me in the mind of magical rituals, where dozens of channelers are needed to power the sorcerer, and once the Mana is depleted, nothing can be done.

Didn't the descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah and friends commit Incest? Ooh.

It seems that a lot of people go through their own crises of faith. I'm hardly unique. How dismaying :)

Supposedly, we should praise our Creator because he created us and provides for us and is good to us. However, while the priest was admonishing parents who merely provide for their children - they are merely doing their duty, not loving them - it occurred to me that if we were created, our Creator has the same duty to provide and care for us that our parents has. We should be grateful, yes, but while keeping it in perspective.

There seems to be power in numbers - if you have few adherents, you're a cult. If you have many followers, you have a religion. Just look how the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Raelians are laughed at. All religion involves a degree of incredulity and suspension of disbelief - so why should some be more derided than others? If we really were created by Aliens who came from UFOs, well. The Raelians would be laughing all the way to the bank.

The priest talked about this guy who killed a Japanese soldier who was raping a villager, and related how this tormented him for 40 years. I got the impression he didn't condone the killing, but I would think that not stopping the rape would have been worse - and a worse sin.

We were told that St Paul said we should have no more anger - but we were continually railed at. Hmm.

Since sexual sins are evil, guitars should not be used in Praise and Worship, since the guitar is meant to be shaped like the body of a woman.

I could have jotted many quotes down, mainly of Bad English, as I am wont to do, but I already had too many notes for this essay, so to have gotten the quotes would have driven me crazy. :0

People went there to get healed. I got injured - my right shoulder and my lower back hurt for a few days after carrying the biggest cross (there *are* disadvantages to being big).

The puritan strain of Catholicism preached caused a great reaction in me, but apparently other religions are not as obsessed with sin as Catholicism, and Catholicism has the problem of having to uphold what all the past popes have said, even if they are patently ridiculous. The damage, of sorts, is done already, (un)fortunately. I guess that�s the way the cookie crumbles.

Christ supposedly died for us, but isn�t it very easy to die, and harder to live? Just like it is easy to get married but harder to live married past the Silver Jubilee.

One Indian Priest said that we should choose the religion most comfortable for us. For example Gandhi wanted to become Christian, but was disgusted by Apartheid in South Africa, but he included elements of Christianity into Hinduism. So I ask - what�s the point of religion, and of doctrine, then, if we go shopping for one and choose the least ascetic one, say? Especially since most religions are exclusive and condemn the others.

Perhaps if we were create by a god, this god didn�t care much for us after initiating the Big Bang and setting in place the laws of the Universe. Who knows, this god may even hate being worshipped, like the Lady of Pain.


10) So what happens now?

And now, the part we�ve all been waiting for. The end. I hope I didn�t confuse anyone too badly, and I assure you, it hurt me a lot more than it hurt you! I got a splitting headache after every writing session.

If you�ve got to here, then I encourage you to think upon some of the issues raised with an open mind.

Most people, however, are already entrenched in one school of thought or another, though, so all this might not have any effect. It's rather sad to talk to people who won't even give alternate truths a thought, and carry on the way they are blindly - indeed deliberately, because they are addicted to this drug. "I'm happier with faith, so there". Right. I could be happier with marijuana, but does that mean I should consume it? (I don't think soft drugs are all that bad, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that I am) People refuse to challenge their faith, because, deep down inside, they have a nagging suspicion that they might be wrong.

It's good to try to spread the gospel of truth though, nonetheless.

I did learn some things about forgiveness, letting go and reflection at the retreat, but that wasn�t really the purpose of it. The feeling of liberation is, however, quite unique.

My beef isn't really with the putative god or his existence. More, it's the vagaries of man-made, organised and interpreted religion, which often is used to manipulate people, imbibe them with illiberal and/or conservative beliefs and use their money for questionable causes, all under the guise of following the will of this god. I am revolted. So if you have to follow a religion, keep an open mind and do not follow unquestioningly whatever the demagogue at the pulpit is yelling about. What makes their opinions and views any more right than yours?

So as of now, I leave open the possibility that there might be a divine being, but I do not profess to know how he works, or believe that anybody might; I doubt that he is especially benevolent, loving, have any ideas as to what he might want us to do and perhaps most pertinently, that he wants all of us to worship him and is looking for all of us. So I will carry on living freely, unbound by (m)any superstitions. Perhaps this state of existence for the world is for the best.

What was suggested to me was that God reveals himself in his own way to each of us, and for those who can't feel his presence or don't get touched, he grants them his grace in another way. Sincere, upright people are supposedly taken care of by him even if they are not believers. I was assured that I'd find eventually - but what about the tonnes of people who don't, and die without having done so? There was no satisfactory answer to that.

So do you choose to take the Blue Pill, or the Red Pill? (Yeah, the Matrix is overrated, but this was appropriate, so) Life inside the Matrix may be more palatable, but it isn�t real.

The truth shall set you free.




Further reading � some sites I found useful:
http://members.tripod.com/~rhatheist/quotes2.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/
http://whatsthisthen.netfirms.com/bob.html
http://mythofjesus.org.uk
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/religion/
http://www.godlovesfags.com
http://mindprod.com/noah.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jeremiah8_8.htm

Who would make a better president Bush or a box of Tic-Tacs? An objective analysis.

Heh.

How to become an obnoxious internet cam whore in five easy steps.

LOL!

"1. Never smile.

2. Write bad poetry, and lots of it.

It's easy, here's a sample to get you started:

fire... burning... agony...
sultry shivers of a dark essence
why am i tortured with this nihilistic existence?
bitter... darkness... despair.

notice the constant lower case? i added that touch to be unique. unique people type in lower case.

3. Turn up the brightness and contrast to hide blemishes in your complexion.

4. Wear stupid trendy box-framed "EMO" glasses.

5. Make a wishlist and sell yourself for it."

On people who are vegetarian because they want to be "humane" (bah) to animals and some more on how vegetarians cause animals to die

The rest of the site's pretty funny too.

Yeh my computer is back with the new motherboard.

My material is all entered in!

Now for some perfunctory editing and polishing up.


He Who Must Not Be Named's comments on an earlier version:

your skepticism is essentially neo-Jansenism of the Lutheran school
- ie. distaste at orthodoxy, a return to a more mystical
understanding, personal comprehension and moral srepsonsibility
otuside of religious constraint

yes, but your essay actually talks a lot about personal experience and understanding of the divine basis for moral conduct, which is pretty much in line iwth the mystical experience (ie. Sufiism, some of the Waldensian heresies, etc)

Something from Jason:



and Sabah pics courtesy of Elaine:



View from the Retreat Centre



Mount Doom in the distance



In the Prayer Hall