I earned a new cap today. I have now been married for 25 years. I have actually survived ... that long!
There must be very few marriages without some kind of difficulties, even those of people whose job is to advise others on marriages. In fact, as the society becomes more affluent, the higher is the divorce rate. This is borne out by the recent statistics showing China's divorce rate is on the rise, as its population enjoys rising standard of living. I think this trend hardly surprises. As both partners become economically stronger and independent, they want more authority to go with their economic clout. For one party to gain in authority, it must necessarily mean diminishing authority for the other party. So when both parties are more demanding in the relationship, it can only mean one thing, trouble in the relationship.
A few generations back, in Asian societies, couples got married through arrangement and agreement of their respective parents. Their marriages seldom ended in separation. It may not be possible to conclude if these arranged marriages made the couple more, or less, happy. Then more recent generations resist such arranged marriages, claiming that their future happiness would be pawned off if they accepted the wishes of others. They insisted on finding their own love and lifelong partners. Again, it is doubtful if today's self arranged married couples are actually happier with their marriages.
I have my fair share of marriage problems. However, at each difficult hurdle, we managed to focus on the larger objective of the relationship and put down whatever differences we have with each other. The younger children's presence certainly help to smooth out a rough ride. We want to give them a future as best we can. That starts with a good relationship in the family.
There is no point in looking back in one's life, unless it is to provide valuable lessons for the future. In this regard, let me say that my marriage is as good as any other.
I am well pleased today. Look at my new shiny silver cap.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Faith 3, Reason 0
Fr George talked to us about the Old Testament yesterday at the RCIA meet. According to Fr George, if the Old Testament is read literally, quite a lot of contradictions would appear. He gave a few examples. In the first book Genesis God created animals and plants before He created man. In another book (I have not confirmed which one he refers to) the man was created before animals and plants.
Fr George said that many people have different ideas about why the Old Testament contains many contradictory texts. However, the over all message of the Old Testament is one of man's relationship with God.
In our group discussion, our group leader said that his view of the Old Testament is that salvation comes only from God.
The consensus, it appears, is that the Old Testament confuses more than it clarifies.
Another own goal for reason perhaps?
Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin posted this piece in Malaysia Today, purportedly written by a Professor in America.
So far reason has been miserable in clearing the air for the unbelievers. However, it does not prove that God does not exist. It only means that with what we have, we can't know God through the texts and logical arguments alone.
It is faith 3, reason 0.
Fr George said that many people have different ideas about why the Old Testament contains many contradictory texts. However, the over all message of the Old Testament is one of man's relationship with God.
In our group discussion, our group leader said that his view of the Old Testament is that salvation comes only from God.
The consensus, it appears, is that the Old Testament confuses more than it clarifies.
Another own goal for reason perhaps?
Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin posted this piece in Malaysia Today, purportedly written by a Professor in America.
So far reason has been miserable in clearing the air for the unbelievers. However, it does not prove that God does not exist. It only means that with what we have, we can't know God through the texts and logical arguments alone.
It is faith 3, reason 0.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
None Of Your Business
Daniel, my church's seminarian, said to us last week that interpreting the bible is a delicate matter. Readers of the bible should not quote isolated verses at liberty to buttress their view points, to prove or disprove one thing or another. In such cases, the verses of the bible could be quoted out of context. It is best to leave it to the church as the final authority on the contextual meaning of the bible texts. The church, in this case, refers to the Vatican, and not the priest at any church.
This again illustrates how tricky it is to use reason to support your belief. If the bible could quite easily be quoted out of context, then surely a large proportion of the believers could not have been able to understand their faith properly, through reason and understanding alone.
The priest at our church said during the Pantecost mass recently that the church has tried for 2,000 years to understand and explain, without success, the concept of the Holy Trinity, where God, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and three. The Holy Trinity, although acknowledged by the church, remains a mystery.
This is therefore my point. If reason can not be used, sometimes, to explain your faith, why continue to use reason? And, why do you wonder, when at other times your reasons appear to be more valid, that others still reject your faith?
Viewing from outside the faith, reasons must be valid for all cases, not on a piecemeal basis.
However, if it is faith that you are pursuing, and not just a reasoned belief, then no one can have a hold on you. You, or I, can believe whatever that we like.
It is none of your business what I believe.
This again illustrates how tricky it is to use reason to support your belief. If the bible could quite easily be quoted out of context, then surely a large proportion of the believers could not have been able to understand their faith properly, through reason and understanding alone.
The priest at our church said during the Pantecost mass recently that the church has tried for 2,000 years to understand and explain, without success, the concept of the Holy Trinity, where God, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and three. The Holy Trinity, although acknowledged by the church, remains a mystery.
This is therefore my point. If reason can not be used, sometimes, to explain your faith, why continue to use reason? And, why do you wonder, when at other times your reasons appear to be more valid, that others still reject your faith?
Viewing from outside the faith, reasons must be valid for all cases, not on a piecemeal basis.
However, if it is faith that you are pursuing, and not just a reasoned belief, then no one can have a hold on you. You, or I, can believe whatever that we like.
It is none of your business what I believe.
Reasoning For God's Sake
In one of my previous posts, I said that using reason alone to identify with God may be difficult and is not necessarily a wise idea. Using faith and experience are far better ideas to identify with God.
This is not stopping people from trying to use reason to prove God's existence. Here are some examples I have heard:
1. Planet Earth is located perfectly to support lives as we know it. Just a little bit further from the sun and it is too cold. A little too close to sun and it will be too hot. Therefore God exists.
2. Life forms are so sophisticated that therefore they could only be created, by God.
3. Cause and effect. The first cause is pre-existing to every thing, and that fits the description of God.
4. So many people are believers in God. Many have personal experiences with God. How could they be all wrong?
5. Jesus Christ was a real person, and he is the Son of God. This is the clearest proof that God exists.
And more.
People who propound reasons to prove God's existence seem to have little understanding about the mindsets of scientists. Scientists are not anti-God or anti-reason as such. Scientists are convinced only by irrefutable proofs, elaborate and solid reasoning.
Scientists aren't just stubborn old mules that will not listen to any reasoning. If they are, then they aren't scientists. Scientists are and will be the first people who are converted by good reasons. And so far, reasons on God's existence just aren't good reasons, yet.
In Chinese, there is a saying, 天机不可泄漏. Translated, it loosely means "The secrets of heaven should not be revealed." The laws and operations of God, and heaven, could not be revealed, not easily anyway, to anyone and everyone. It is not just in the Chinese culture that this "secrets should not be revealed" thing applies. The Vatican also keeps secrets about some divine revelations. Many people suspect the US government have massive secrets about aliens under wrap. In the family, parents frequently keep certain secrets from children.
So the best evidence on divine matters are probably kept secret from ordinary folks. Meanwhile we try as hard as possible to justify for God with our finite wisdom.
Reasoning for God's sake? Nice try.
This is not stopping people from trying to use reason to prove God's existence. Here are some examples I have heard:
1. Planet Earth is located perfectly to support lives as we know it. Just a little bit further from the sun and it is too cold. A little too close to sun and it will be too hot. Therefore God exists.
2. Life forms are so sophisticated that therefore they could only be created, by God.
3. Cause and effect. The first cause is pre-existing to every thing, and that fits the description of God.
4. So many people are believers in God. Many have personal experiences with God. How could they be all wrong?
5. Jesus Christ was a real person, and he is the Son of God. This is the clearest proof that God exists.
And more.
People who propound reasons to prove God's existence seem to have little understanding about the mindsets of scientists. Scientists are not anti-God or anti-reason as such. Scientists are convinced only by irrefutable proofs, elaborate and solid reasoning.
Scientists aren't just stubborn old mules that will not listen to any reasoning. If they are, then they aren't scientists. Scientists are and will be the first people who are converted by good reasons. And so far, reasons on God's existence just aren't good reasons, yet.
In Chinese, there is a saying, 天机不可泄漏. Translated, it loosely means "The secrets of heaven should not be revealed." The laws and operations of God, and heaven, could not be revealed, not easily anyway, to anyone and everyone. It is not just in the Chinese culture that this "secrets should not be revealed" thing applies. The Vatican also keeps secrets about some divine revelations. Many people suspect the US government have massive secrets about aliens under wrap. In the family, parents frequently keep certain secrets from children.
So the best evidence on divine matters are probably kept secret from ordinary folks. Meanwhile we try as hard as possible to justify for God with our finite wisdom.
Reasoning for God's sake? Nice try.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The World Cup And The Business
Recently as I stumbled and rolled through the internet marketing world, the temptation to give up is strong. Everywhere you look, the rooms are full, of people fighting for their share of the internet business wealth.
I would love to tell myself that I am late, at the game.
There again, many gurus are expounding that we are only at the very beginning of the internet commercial age. This is a beautiful time to stake your claim to the future world. Do you believe the gurus?
So I look at it another way. At every competitive sports event, new records are created. No matter how impossible it looks, the records could still fall.
Look at the current soccer world cup competition. Every day there are some new records of some kind. Here are some:
1. First time Switzerland beating Spain.
2. First time New Zealand never lost a game at the final.
3. First win by Greece at the final.
4. First time three brothers play in a world cup final team - Honduras.
No doubt there will be many more records to come.
Sports records are inevitably always broken. So what's so impossible about cracking open the business competition?
I would love to tell myself that I am late, at the game.
There again, many gurus are expounding that we are only at the very beginning of the internet commercial age. This is a beautiful time to stake your claim to the future world. Do you believe the gurus?
So I look at it another way. At every competitive sports event, new records are created. No matter how impossible it looks, the records could still fall.
Look at the current soccer world cup competition. Every day there are some new records of some kind. Here are some:
1. First time Switzerland beating Spain.
2. First time New Zealand never lost a game at the final.
3. First win by Greece at the final.
4. First time three brothers play in a world cup final team - Honduras.
No doubt there will be many more records to come.
Sports records are inevitably always broken. So what's so impossible about cracking open the business competition?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Do I Know You From Another Time?
A friend once asked me, if reincarnation is a true law, could I explain how the human population is growing? What contributes to the increase in population? His reasoning is simple, one man dies, then another is born. So there should not be an increase in population.
As much as I am quite tempted to, I shouldn't be explaining why there is a population increase with reincarnation. I am no expert in this. I have already said that reasoning is a bad way to experience God. If we rely on reasoning ALONE as basis of faith, then a single failed reasoning must bring down the entire foundation of that faith. That is how the reasoning world operates. The law is either totally right, or not. It can't be right some of the time, and wrong in some other time.
In my humble opinion, however, if you try but fail in using reason to explain your belief, it does not actually prove that your faith is wrong or God does not exist. You could still get out by admitting that reason ALONE is not enough to explain matters of faith and belief. Failing the reason test could simply be due to the divine laws and operations being beyond the current ability of the human race to comprehend. Simple logic suggests that if one could explain everything about the divine laws and operations, that one person is probably enlightened or be like a prophet already.
On the flip side, there is a clear danger in not adopting reason as a basis of faith. What if you have been wrong all along in your belief? Can you afford to pay the price of your folly?
Returning to the subject of reincarnation. Christians do not believe in reincarnation. Their belief is that upon death, the soul goes into a temporary resting place to await the judgment day when it will be called up to be judged by God. Reincarnation, however, suggests that a dying being must return to exist in one of six realms, except when in transition from one realm to the next, unless the being attains enlightenment whence it escapes from the cycle of reincarnation permanently. The Buddha is an example of an enlightened being.
Clearly, the Christian belief model exerts more urgency on the individual to attain spiritual awareness in order to rise to glory on the day of judgment and be seated next to the angels, saints and God.
On the other hand, the Buddhist reincarnation model provides for a longer path towards the Christian equivalent of the final judgment day glory in the form of a final enlightenment. At each life cycle, a Buddhist hopes to improve his spiritual state, building on the foundation started from the previous lives. Step by step, little by little and life after life. In this Buddhist belief, therefore, the individual relies less on a uniform religious body to attain his final goal. He does not really need to go to a temple in order to progress spiritually. This is something a Christian can't do without.
And so, Christians need to follow the practices and instructions of their churches for their salvations. For the Buddhists, some of the more advanced practitioners may even attain enlightenment without any teachers or temples.
Which religion is the best? Asking such a question suggests that more than one religion may be right. Many religionists may not agree with this position. For them only their belief is the right one, the others are somewhat incorrect or inappropriate.
According to the Dalai Lama, there is indeed a best religion. It is whichever one that gets you closer to God.
As much as I am quite tempted to, I shouldn't be explaining why there is a population increase with reincarnation. I am no expert in this. I have already said that reasoning is a bad way to experience God. If we rely on reasoning ALONE as basis of faith, then a single failed reasoning must bring down the entire foundation of that faith. That is how the reasoning world operates. The law is either totally right, or not. It can't be right some of the time, and wrong in some other time.
In my humble opinion, however, if you try but fail in using reason to explain your belief, it does not actually prove that your faith is wrong or God does not exist. You could still get out by admitting that reason ALONE is not enough to explain matters of faith and belief. Failing the reason test could simply be due to the divine laws and operations being beyond the current ability of the human race to comprehend. Simple logic suggests that if one could explain everything about the divine laws and operations, that one person is probably enlightened or be like a prophet already.
On the flip side, there is a clear danger in not adopting reason as a basis of faith. What if you have been wrong all along in your belief? Can you afford to pay the price of your folly?
Returning to the subject of reincarnation. Christians do not believe in reincarnation. Their belief is that upon death, the soul goes into a temporary resting place to await the judgment day when it will be called up to be judged by God. Reincarnation, however, suggests that a dying being must return to exist in one of six realms, except when in transition from one realm to the next, unless the being attains enlightenment whence it escapes from the cycle of reincarnation permanently. The Buddha is an example of an enlightened being.
Clearly, the Christian belief model exerts more urgency on the individual to attain spiritual awareness in order to rise to glory on the day of judgment and be seated next to the angels, saints and God.
On the other hand, the Buddhist reincarnation model provides for a longer path towards the Christian equivalent of the final judgment day glory in the form of a final enlightenment. At each life cycle, a Buddhist hopes to improve his spiritual state, building on the foundation started from the previous lives. Step by step, little by little and life after life. In this Buddhist belief, therefore, the individual relies less on a uniform religious body to attain his final goal. He does not really need to go to a temple in order to progress spiritually. This is something a Christian can't do without.
And so, Christians need to follow the practices and instructions of their churches for their salvations. For the Buddhists, some of the more advanced practitioners may even attain enlightenment without any teachers or temples.
Which religion is the best? Asking such a question suggests that more than one religion may be right. Many religionists may not agree with this position. For them only their belief is the right one, the others are somewhat incorrect or inappropriate.
According to the Dalai Lama, there is indeed a best religion. It is whichever one that gets you closer to God.
Do Not Bring Me To The Test
It took me a good many years after I have been singing the Catholic prayer that I realised there is a lot more to it in the part of the prayer that says "Do not bring us to the test."
Why request (prayer is a request) God to not bring us to the test? Surely the tests couldn't be that hard?
Many of us, me included, tend to judge others harshly, and go easier with ourselves. When others falter, we offer comments and criticisms. Rarely do we put ourselves in the position of those who faltered, and assess if we could really have done better. Let me say this, most of the time we could not have managed a better outcome than those whom we criticised.
The more enlightened ones among us know this, and they express their knowledge in the form of this prayer. Please do not bring us to the test, they pray.
How much more truth could you extract from this statement? We are better not because we are better, but because we are luckier. We have not been tested, yet. Wear your pride please, only if you have passed the tests.
Let me humble myself each time I sing, do not bring us to the test.
Why request (prayer is a request) God to not bring us to the test? Surely the tests couldn't be that hard?
Many of us, me included, tend to judge others harshly, and go easier with ourselves. When others falter, we offer comments and criticisms. Rarely do we put ourselves in the position of those who faltered, and assess if we could really have done better. Let me say this, most of the time we could not have managed a better outcome than those whom we criticised.
The more enlightened ones among us know this, and they express their knowledge in the form of this prayer. Please do not bring us to the test, they pray.
How much more truth could you extract from this statement? We are better not because we are better, but because we are luckier. We have not been tested, yet. Wear your pride please, only if you have passed the tests.
Let me humble myself each time I sing, do not bring us to the test.
Grace begets grace
Two weeks ago a teenage American girl's bid to be the new youngest person to sail round the globe solo came unstuck when her yacht sailed into a storm in the Indian ocean and her mast broke. She sent out emergency SOS beacons, then she became incommunicado. She was several thousand kilometres from Western Australia, the nearest country with the capability to help her quickly.
Naturally the Australian emergency services responded quickly and appropriately. The only way to get to the sailor was to use a long range commercial aircraft. So a Qantas jet was chartered by the rescuers and flown out to find the yacht. Five hours later the plane spotted the stricken yacht. The rescuers communicated with the sailor using short range radio, and determined that she was in good spirit and physical condition. A surface rescue plan was then put in place for a fishing vessel to pick up the sailor the next day.
The whole rescue mission cost the Australian taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.
Some sections of the community felt that the money should be recovered from the sailor's family. Fortunately the majority of the community agreed with the emergency service's stance that the money will not be demanded from the family.
The chief of the emergency services reasoned that you can't put a price on a life. I agree with that. Help, whenever rendered, must be free of conditions.
I also believe that all good deeds will eventually be repaid. The repayment, when it comes, will be in greater form or amount than the initial help rendered.
Grace begets grace.
Naturally the Australian emergency services responded quickly and appropriately. The only way to get to the sailor was to use a long range commercial aircraft. So a Qantas jet was chartered by the rescuers and flown out to find the yacht. Five hours later the plane spotted the stricken yacht. The rescuers communicated with the sailor using short range radio, and determined that she was in good spirit and physical condition. A surface rescue plan was then put in place for a fishing vessel to pick up the sailor the next day.
The whole rescue mission cost the Australian taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.
Some sections of the community felt that the money should be recovered from the sailor's family. Fortunately the majority of the community agreed with the emergency service's stance that the money will not be demanded from the family.
The chief of the emergency services reasoned that you can't put a price on a life. I agree with that. Help, whenever rendered, must be free of conditions.
I also believe that all good deeds will eventually be repaid. The repayment, when it comes, will be in greater form or amount than the initial help rendered.
Grace begets grace.
Dying Without God
At our weekly RCIA meet, Daniel, the seminarian at our church, spoke about three ways that we may be able to experience God:
1. Reasoning. With reasoning, logic is applied to deduce that God must exist. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas argued that since science suggests that for every effect there must be a cause, and everything must begin with a cause, therefore the first cause must be God.
2. Experience. Some people have personal and close experience that they attribute to God.
3. Faith. With faith, you simply choose to believe in God, regardless of your own experience or logical reasoning.
Daniel said that reasoning is perhaps the hardest factor in experiencing God. I agree with him. Sometimes, with good reasoning, it is indeed close to possible to argue about the existence of God. The difficulties with reasoning, I feel, is that everything about or attributed to God must then be totally and logically proved, and not just piece meal reasoning. If a single reasoning is weak, it then tears down the whole reasoning process. e.g., I have yet to see a reasoned and logical argument for all knowing God vs free willing mankind.
Experience would be a really good candidate to feel the existence of God. Many people have experienced something divine which can not be explained logically. We have heard of miraculous cures of incurable disease after intercessionary prayers. We have also heard of out of body experiences by some people in the non physical realm. If I need to be harsh with this, I could say that it does not prove the existence of God, although it proves there is something that is supernatural.
Faith is perhaps the best way to experience God. Anyone with sufficient faith can accept the existence of God. However, faith is not limited to Christian experience alone. Followers of other faiths may also experience their own supernatural being or God in the same way as Christians do.
Ultimately, it is your own decision if you want to believe in God, or not. Perhaps the best quote I have heard with regards to a faith or belief is this by an unknown author:
I would rather live believing in God and to die finding that He does not exist, than to live not believing in God and to die finding that He exists.
1. Reasoning. With reasoning, logic is applied to deduce that God must exist. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas argued that since science suggests that for every effect there must be a cause, and everything must begin with a cause, therefore the first cause must be God.
2. Experience. Some people have personal and close experience that they attribute to God.
3. Faith. With faith, you simply choose to believe in God, regardless of your own experience or logical reasoning.
Daniel said that reasoning is perhaps the hardest factor in experiencing God. I agree with him. Sometimes, with good reasoning, it is indeed close to possible to argue about the existence of God. The difficulties with reasoning, I feel, is that everything about or attributed to God must then be totally and logically proved, and not just piece meal reasoning. If a single reasoning is weak, it then tears down the whole reasoning process. e.g., I have yet to see a reasoned and logical argument for all knowing God vs free willing mankind.
Experience would be a really good candidate to feel the existence of God. Many people have experienced something divine which can not be explained logically. We have heard of miraculous cures of incurable disease after intercessionary prayers. We have also heard of out of body experiences by some people in the non physical realm. If I need to be harsh with this, I could say that it does not prove the existence of God, although it proves there is something that is supernatural.
Faith is perhaps the best way to experience God. Anyone with sufficient faith can accept the existence of God. However, faith is not limited to Christian experience alone. Followers of other faiths may also experience their own supernatural being or God in the same way as Christians do.
Ultimately, it is your own decision if you want to believe in God, or not. Perhaps the best quote I have heard with regards to a faith or belief is this by an unknown author:
I would rather live believing in God and to die finding that He does not exist, than to live not believing in God and to die finding that He exists.
The Day I Lost My Tooth
A friend called up for a chat. His daughter is in the midst of her university course, and she wants to change her course, as she dislikes the course that she is studying now.
I posed the question to my friend, did his daughter choose her current course herself? My friend said, in a way yes, because her pre-university examination result was not exactly so good that she had other choices.
I could not really advise my friend as I do not know his daughter well. However, I have similar experience of my own.
I remember when I was doing pre-university study in England, I had a fellow course mate who was preparing to enter university to pursue a degree in medicine. His study effort and results were only average. I was quite sure he would not make it into a medical course. Medical courses were and still are selecting only the best performing students. He told me his parents wanted him to be a doctor, whereas his real passion was in cooking. He knew he would not make it to the medical school. However, he was easily the best cook among our group of friends.
True enough, he failed to gain entry to the medical school. He did successfully become a chef later.
In his second year doing his accounting degree, my son also told me that he was not interested in studying accountancy. He said he wanted to go to Switzerland to study hotel management and catering. I asked him why Switzerland. His reply was that Switzerland is the world's best place to study for that course.
It would have been good, if my son's passion was really in catering. But, he had never cooked a proper meal, nor did he ever show interest in anything in the kitchen.
Naturally I did not agree to my son's proposition and insisted he complete his accounting degree.
I remember an interesting episode when I was in primary school. One day I was bullied by a fellow class mate. He threatened to punch me the next day when we met in school. I dared not inform my parents about the unfortunate experience. The next day I did not want to go to school. I had to have a really good reason for evading school. So I told mum I had a serious tooth ache. Mum took me to the dentist. I was asked which tooth hurt. I picked out one that was perfectly good. The tooth was removed. That was how dentistry was practiced in those darker days.
Kids know that they need a good reason to avoid doing what they do not like to do. Sometimes, the reasons are valid. Most other times, they aren't.
I never forget the day I lost my tooth, a perfectly good tooth.
I posed the question to my friend, did his daughter choose her current course herself? My friend said, in a way yes, because her pre-university examination result was not exactly so good that she had other choices.
I could not really advise my friend as I do not know his daughter well. However, I have similar experience of my own.
I remember when I was doing pre-university study in England, I had a fellow course mate who was preparing to enter university to pursue a degree in medicine. His study effort and results were only average. I was quite sure he would not make it into a medical course. Medical courses were and still are selecting only the best performing students. He told me his parents wanted him to be a doctor, whereas his real passion was in cooking. He knew he would not make it to the medical school. However, he was easily the best cook among our group of friends.
True enough, he failed to gain entry to the medical school. He did successfully become a chef later.
In his second year doing his accounting degree, my son also told me that he was not interested in studying accountancy. He said he wanted to go to Switzerland to study hotel management and catering. I asked him why Switzerland. His reply was that Switzerland is the world's best place to study for that course.
It would have been good, if my son's passion was really in catering. But, he had never cooked a proper meal, nor did he ever show interest in anything in the kitchen.
Naturally I did not agree to my son's proposition and insisted he complete his accounting degree.
I remember an interesting episode when I was in primary school. One day I was bullied by a fellow class mate. He threatened to punch me the next day when we met in school. I dared not inform my parents about the unfortunate experience. The next day I did not want to go to school. I had to have a really good reason for evading school. So I told mum I had a serious tooth ache. Mum took me to the dentist. I was asked which tooth hurt. I picked out one that was perfectly good. The tooth was removed. That was how dentistry was practiced in those darker days.
Kids know that they need a good reason to avoid doing what they do not like to do. Sometimes, the reasons are valid. Most other times, they aren't.
I never forget the day I lost my tooth, a perfectly good tooth.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
God Will Help You Only If You Help Yourself
I don't know about you but I have heard this being said often.
The saying sounds logical enough. Why help you if you don't even want to help yourself. Even God can't help you.
I always suspected this saying did not have a religious root. I mean, can God be thinking and behaving like an average human being? Yes, an average person would probably not want to help you if you are not going to put in some effort towards helping yourself simultaneously. But there are a lot of great human beings who would go to great length to help you even if you refuse to help yourself. Could God be truly a lesser being than these great human personalities?
If He is God, I know He will help you over and over again, even if you fail again and again at helping yourself. If He doesn't, He is not God.
The saying sounds logical enough. Why help you if you don't even want to help yourself. Even God can't help you.
I always suspected this saying did not have a religious root. I mean, can God be thinking and behaving like an average human being? Yes, an average person would probably not want to help you if you are not going to put in some effort towards helping yourself simultaneously. But there are a lot of great human beings who would go to great length to help you even if you refuse to help yourself. Could God be truly a lesser being than these great human personalities?
If He is God, I know He will help you over and over again, even if you fail again and again at helping yourself. If He doesn't, He is not God.
Faith
At the RCIA weekly meets, we have commenced discussion on catholicism. The first topic was centred on faith.
Faith, as defined in the dictionary, means having confidence in someone, or in the context of religion, having confidence in God. An example of faith was Abraham obeying God's command to offer his only son Issac as a sacrifice. I felt quite disturbed with this example. It is a bit hard to appreciate that as an example of faith in today's context.
I am always moved by great faith. In the movie "The Ten Commandments", stopped in their escape by the Red Sea, and with an army of Egyptian warriors in hot pursuit, the Jews were cowered in fears. Moses (played by Charlton Heston) pronounced, majestically, "Ten times you have witnessed the power of God, and yet you still have no faith" This is of course after God had, through Moses, turned the Nile red and taken the first borns of Egyptians as a show of divine authority to the unbelieving Egyptian Pharoah.
I must say that it was folly of the highest order for those Jews to still not have faith in God after such display of supernatural authority.
During our discussion time at the RCIA, I was asked a direct question on what I thought of God, and my faith relationship with Him. I got the impression, I may be wrong here, that my catholic friends do not think that faith can be directed towards a non-God focus. So, I told them, I have faith too. I pray too. However, I have some difficulties identifying my focus of faith on a one God.
I am beginning to think that the myriad of questions that I have about Christianity and Catholicism will never be fully answered. This is not surprising at all. Faith itself means believing without the need for reasoning and convincing.
While chatting with Fr Philip last week, he told us jokingly not to ask Daniel too many difficult questions, as Daniel might become confused and fail his theology examination. Daniel is a resident seminarian at our church. He is a leader of our RCIA group, he will be ordained as a full priest later this year after he passes his final theology examination. Daniel quickly added that luckily for him, his examination comes up on Monday 14th June, whereas we only get the opportunity to ask him questions on next Thursday 17th June. So no matter what we ask, it is not going to affect his performance at the examination.
I am different from Catholics who are born as Catholics and who have never an opportunity nor the spiritual need to explore outside their faith. I have questions which they never ask. I can't stop myself from asking questions.
I look forward to a better discussion with my friend Daniel.
Faith, as defined in the dictionary, means having confidence in someone, or in the context of religion, having confidence in God. An example of faith was Abraham obeying God's command to offer his only son Issac as a sacrifice. I felt quite disturbed with this example. It is a bit hard to appreciate that as an example of faith in today's context.
I am always moved by great faith. In the movie "The Ten Commandments", stopped in their escape by the Red Sea, and with an army of Egyptian warriors in hot pursuit, the Jews were cowered in fears. Moses (played by Charlton Heston) pronounced, majestically, "Ten times you have witnessed the power of God, and yet you still have no faith" This is of course after God had, through Moses, turned the Nile red and taken the first borns of Egyptians as a show of divine authority to the unbelieving Egyptian Pharoah.
I must say that it was folly of the highest order for those Jews to still not have faith in God after such display of supernatural authority.
During our discussion time at the RCIA, I was asked a direct question on what I thought of God, and my faith relationship with Him. I got the impression, I may be wrong here, that my catholic friends do not think that faith can be directed towards a non-God focus. So, I told them, I have faith too. I pray too. However, I have some difficulties identifying my focus of faith on a one God.
I am beginning to think that the myriad of questions that I have about Christianity and Catholicism will never be fully answered. This is not surprising at all. Faith itself means believing without the need for reasoning and convincing.
While chatting with Fr Philip last week, he told us jokingly not to ask Daniel too many difficult questions, as Daniel might become confused and fail his theology examination. Daniel is a resident seminarian at our church. He is a leader of our RCIA group, he will be ordained as a full priest later this year after he passes his final theology examination. Daniel quickly added that luckily for him, his examination comes up on Monday 14th June, whereas we only get the opportunity to ask him questions on next Thursday 17th June. So no matter what we ask, it is not going to affect his performance at the examination.
I am different from Catholics who are born as Catholics and who have never an opportunity nor the spiritual need to explore outside their faith. I have questions which they never ask. I can't stop myself from asking questions.
I look forward to a better discussion with my friend Daniel.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Chop or Stamp
At the Malaysian Immigration checkpoint at Johor Bahru, my children's uncle asked for our passports, to be chopped by the immigration officer.
Julian and Rebecca asked "chopped? Why chop the passports?" Their uncle did not get it, and repeated, "yes your passports must be chopped by the immigration." Now the children became seriously worried, and they asked again, "why do they need to chop my passport?" After all, having your passports chopped up is not a joke you can live with.
Twenty years ago when I worked in Australia, I asked the receptionist to give me the 'company chop' and she gave me a blank look. I repeated the request and I still could not get what I needed.
Of course, the correct word is stamp, not chop.
How and why did we say 'chop'?
Julian and Rebecca asked "chopped? Why chop the passports?" Their uncle did not get it, and repeated, "yes your passports must be chopped by the immigration." Now the children became seriously worried, and they asked again, "why do they need to chop my passport?" After all, having your passports chopped up is not a joke you can live with.
Twenty years ago when I worked in Australia, I asked the receptionist to give me the 'company chop' and she gave me a blank look. I repeated the request and I still could not get what I needed.
Of course, the correct word is stamp, not chop.
How and why did we say 'chop'?
I Am Not Listening
Dr Phil is a popular American talk show host and counsellor. He is especially good at helping people with family, relationship and other personal problems.
But he is not without marriage problem of his own.
We are all good counsellors. We all can help others solve their problems but we can't solve our own same problems.
Many years ago, I read a short story about a couple. The wife worked as a relationship adviser. In those days, when people had emotional problems, they wrote in to the newspapers, periodicals or weeklies which employed columnists to advise the readers on their problems. So this wife worked as a columnist and she regularly worked all day including deep into the night to pen out her advice for her readers. She neglected to do her part for the works required at home. For her, work was the most and only important task.
She was so good at her work she was appropriately called 'the light of the community".
One day she received a help request from a man. The man had a problem. He did a day job, cared for his children and did all the house chores. His wife was busy with her own work all day and night and ignored his and the family's need. He had no way of communicating with his wife to resolve the issues. All he wanted was for the wife to work a little less and paid some attention to him and the family.
The wife sympathetically wrote a reply to this reader. She gave him advice on how to approach and deal with his wife. She said, his wife was wrong to have put all attention on her work, at great expense to the emotional needs of her family, and yada, yada, yada.
Next, this woman columnist was shown her own exact words by her husband. He had written to his wife for help. He was that reader.
We are all great advisors, for others. Somehow, when we deal with our own affairs, we become totally paralysed and useless.
We just do not listen to those who are close to us. They may have that exact medicine to cure our ills, but that medicine is more effective if dispensed from others.
Why?
But he is not without marriage problem of his own.
We are all good counsellors. We all can help others solve their problems but we can't solve our own same problems.
Many years ago, I read a short story about a couple. The wife worked as a relationship adviser. In those days, when people had emotional problems, they wrote in to the newspapers, periodicals or weeklies which employed columnists to advise the readers on their problems. So this wife worked as a columnist and she regularly worked all day including deep into the night to pen out her advice for her readers. She neglected to do her part for the works required at home. For her, work was the most and only important task.
She was so good at her work she was appropriately called 'the light of the community".
One day she received a help request from a man. The man had a problem. He did a day job, cared for his children and did all the house chores. His wife was busy with her own work all day and night and ignored his and the family's need. He had no way of communicating with his wife to resolve the issues. All he wanted was for the wife to work a little less and paid some attention to him and the family.
The wife sympathetically wrote a reply to this reader. She gave him advice on how to approach and deal with his wife. She said, his wife was wrong to have put all attention on her work, at great expense to the emotional needs of her family, and yada, yada, yada.
Next, this woman columnist was shown her own exact words by her husband. He had written to his wife for help. He was that reader.
We are all great advisors, for others. Somehow, when we deal with our own affairs, we become totally paralysed and useless.
We just do not listen to those who are close to us. They may have that exact medicine to cure our ills, but that medicine is more effective if dispensed from others.
Why?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
No Secrets Please. We Are Australians
Australians are a bunch of chatty lot. They just love to talk. When they start to talk, all other things are subordinated in importance. They can talk, as we sometimes like to infer, till kingdom comes.
And so, if you are in the queue for some services, don't count your luck yet when there are only three people in front of you. You know, Australians are efficient in their service delivery. They may take only five minutes to dispense the required service to you. Then, a great unique Australian only behaviour takes over. The customer and the service provider start to talk. And they talk for another fifteen minutes. Talk about what? It usually does not look about the service.
I see this happening everywhere. The only times when this does not happen is when one or all of the following is/are true:
1. Either the customer or the service provider is young-ish.
2. At risk of being labeled a sexist, either the customer or the service provider is a male.
So last week I took Julian to an after hour clinic for a consultation. He had flu. And he had a school camp coming up in two days. We thought, just to be safe, we had better get his flu under control or he might just have to miss the camp. Julian would probably cry if he had to skip the camp. He had been eagerly waiting for it for sometime.
At the clinic, there were only, yes only, three other patients ahead of us. Another patient must have been with the doctor when we checked in. This patient did not come out until forty minutes later. So I started estimating it would take us another one half hours to reach the doctor. The next one took fifteen minutes. Then two more, teenagers, each spent five minutes. Finally I used five minutes to get it over.
And then, at the chemist shop, I bumped into another typical chatty fellow in front of me. She took twenty minutes, yes, to buy her medicine. Fifteen of those minutes were spent talking after she got the medicine, all about the medicine I think. I took just three minutes to get mine.
What do Australians talk about? If there was that much to talk about, you would seriously need to wonder.
No secrets please. We are Australians.
And so, if you are in the queue for some services, don't count your luck yet when there are only three people in front of you. You know, Australians are efficient in their service delivery. They may take only five minutes to dispense the required service to you. Then, a great unique Australian only behaviour takes over. The customer and the service provider start to talk. And they talk for another fifteen minutes. Talk about what? It usually does not look about the service.
I see this happening everywhere. The only times when this does not happen is when one or all of the following is/are true:
1. Either the customer or the service provider is young-ish.
2. At risk of being labeled a sexist, either the customer or the service provider is a male.
So last week I took Julian to an after hour clinic for a consultation. He had flu. And he had a school camp coming up in two days. We thought, just to be safe, we had better get his flu under control or he might just have to miss the camp. Julian would probably cry if he had to skip the camp. He had been eagerly waiting for it for sometime.
At the clinic, there were only, yes only, three other patients ahead of us. Another patient must have been with the doctor when we checked in. This patient did not come out until forty minutes later. So I started estimating it would take us another one half hours to reach the doctor. The next one took fifteen minutes. Then two more, teenagers, each spent five minutes. Finally I used five minutes to get it over.
And then, at the chemist shop, I bumped into another typical chatty fellow in front of me. She took twenty minutes, yes, to buy her medicine. Fifteen of those minutes were spent talking after she got the medicine, all about the medicine I think. I took just three minutes to get mine.
What do Australians talk about? If there was that much to talk about, you would seriously need to wonder.
No secrets please. We are Australians.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)