Qooties. We wants them.

Events to look out for part II

2011-09-29T04:46:00.000-07:00

1) Zoology and mythology: Looking at angels, fairies and dragons. By Prof Roger Wotton. 16th November, 6 pm. Anatomy JZ Young LT

2) Is the universe designed for man? By Prof Rodney Townsend, Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. 12th October, 7 pm. All Souls Langham Place

3) WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953) ON THE BIG SCREEN, 3rd October, Grant Museum, Darwin building.

Yum.

Events to look out for part I

2011-01-20T04:47:00.000-08:00

1)
What: Changing Science: Would Darwin get a job in science today?

A light hearted discussion and debate.

When: Tuesday 1st Feb, 6.30pm - 7.45pm

Where: JZ Young LT, Anatomy Building

2)
"Human Evolution: Past and Future"

With an excellent line up of speakers including:
Professor Steve Jones, Lecturer in Genetics, Evolution and Environment (UCL),
Professor Ruth Mace, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology (UCL),
Professor Mark Maslin, Director of the UCL Environment Institute and Head of the Department of Geography (UCL),
Alex Mesoudi, Lecturer in Psychology (Queen Mary University)

When: Wednesday 9th March at 2.00
Where: JZ Young Lecture Theatre, Anatomy Building, Gower Street

3)
What: Inherit the Wind (1960) on the big screen
A film based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial when an American school teacher was arrested for teaching evolution. A controversy is afoot.

When: Tuesday 22nd March, 6.30 pm - 9.00 pm
Where: JZ Young LT, Anatomy Building

天冷就回來

2011-01-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

Adapted.

我問自己為什麼...
- 傷心像快樂?
- 幸福不快樂?
- 作夢也快樂?

我虽微笑说我也不懂得, 但我猜我脑裡有明白,還有一絲無奈.

天冷若沒回家,　我仍然该等待?

下雨了. 我懒得带着雨伞出去找人,只愿坐在亭里边歇息.

心中有些期待有人会带着另一把伞来亭里避雨.

但这里边是荒山野林,哪来的人? 还是先走回家吧.

我看明天又会下雨.

明天的雨點灑下來　那滋味叫什么?

Objection: A loving God would never torture people in hell

2010-07-07T23:25:00.000-07:00

This is a compilation of arguments for and against the doctrine of hell, posted online for simple archiving. Material heavily adapted from “Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel (henceforth referred to as "CFF"). Views presented here are not necessarily reflective of all my personal opinions.

Introduction

Define/Describe subject of discussion: Hell, contrasting the literal description with the definition in CFF, as well as a brief mention of how hell is portrayed in other cultures. These descriptions are mutually exclusive.

There are 162 references in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that warn of Hell. Over 70 of these references are attributed to Jesus.

Literal definition of hell:

1) a) A place in another dimension, filled with fire and brimstone, where people experience mental agony. This hell will be physical as well after the 2^nd coming.

Matthew 13:42 “They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Parable of the weeds)

Luke 16:24 “… send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

b)A place where one is bound hand and foot (Matthew 22:13), cut in pieces (Matthew 24:51) and whipped severely (Luke 12:47).

2) c) Eternally separated from heaven

Luke 16:26 “…between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”

2 Thessalonians 1:9 “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.”

Metaphorical definition of hell

This view has only been promoted since the 16^th century. This arose due to moral objections and the conflicts between certain imagery if taken literally. For example hell is described both as a place of darkness and a place with fire. Refer to CFF pg 244-246

As C.H. Pinnock, an Evangelical writes: "Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that? I suppose one might be afraid of him, but could we love and respect him? Would we want to strive to be like him in his mercilessness?"

1) a) An eternal state of separation/existence apart from God and all that is good, for the unsaved

2) b) No literal torture takes place, but the physical and mental anguish of being cut off from goodness is so indescribable that one has to use the “fire and brimstone” imagery as a comparison. Therefore, Hell is a punishment but not a “punish-ing”

Depictions of hell in non-religious works

1) Featured in the poem “The Divine Comedy” written by Dante. Dante’s inferno has 9 circles of hell, with the punishment in each circle fitted to the nature of the sin. For example in the 2^nd circle “lust”, souls are blown about to and fro by the terrible winds of a violent storm, without hope of rest. This symbolizes the power of lust to blow one about needlessly and aimlessly.

2) Featured in Plato’s works as “Tartarus” and “Hades”.

3) The concept of punishment in the afterlife is present in many religions and cultures. Banishment to the 18levels of the underworld in Chinese folklore and the weighing of the heart in the Egyptian underworld are examples.

Looking into 8 individual objections in CFF

1) How can God send children to hell? (CFF p 248-249)

Argument in a nutshell: The act of sending innocent children who have not known God, to eternal torture in hell is cruel. This goes against the notion of a loving God.

Some Catholic Christians believe in the “Limbus Infantum”, where unbaptized children remain there without hope of deliverance. While they do not suffer the punishment of hell, they are also excluded from the blessings of heaven. No direct scriptural evidence.

Psalms 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Counter-arguments

I. The biblical language about fire and flames is figurative and thus God does not sanction actual torture in hell.

II. In the afterlife, all personalities of souls reflect what they would have been as adults. Thus there will be no children in hell and also no one in hell who, if they had a chance to grow up to be adults, would have chosen to go to heaven. No direct scriptural evidence, but can be deduced based on how humans were originally meant to be in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created as adults.

III. Children are viewed as part of the kingdom of heaven. Children who die before the age of accountability (and are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong), will not be damned.

Luke 18:16 “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

2 Samuel 12:23 “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Deuteronomy 1:22 “And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad…”

Isaiah 7:16 “But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right…”

2) Why does everyone suffer the same hell? (CFF p 249-251)

Argument in a nutshell: Hell is unfair because everyone is subjected to the same eternal punishment regardless of their deeds on earth. God’s justice is proportional.

Counter-arguments

I. The concept of a one size fits all punishment is unscriptural. The Bible teaches that there are different degrees of suffering and punishment.

Matthew 11: 20-24

Luke 12: 47-48 Contrast “beaten with many blows” and “beaten with few blows”

Rom 2:6 “God will give to each person according to what he has done.”

3) Why are people punished infinitely for finite crimes? (CFF p 251-253)

Argument in a nutshell: Hell is unfair because it is an infinite punishment (with no hope of probation), for sins committed in a finite life.

Counter-arguments

I. The degree of punishment meted onto a person is not dependent on the length of time he/she took to commit a crime. It is dependent on the severity of the crime and nothing can be worse than rejecting the message of grace and belittling Jesus’ sacrifice for us.

4) Couldn’t God force everyone to go to heaven? (CFF p 253-254)

Argument in a nutshell: If God is grieved by Hell, why does he not force everyone to go to heaven?

2 Peter 3:9 “…He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Counter-arguments

I. Forcing everyone to go to heaven dehumanizes them and dishonours their freedom of choice. It would be unloving to force a person into a relationship with God if he/she is not willing.

II. Since God is righteous, he judges and distinguishes the righteous from the wicked. A God that makes no such distinction is amoral.

1 Peter 1:17 “Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.”

5) Why doesn’t God just snuff people out? (CFF p 255-258)

Argument in a nutshell: Is it not more merciful and just for God to annihilate the unsaved rather than to subject them to eternal punishment?

This is the doctrine of annihilationism and conditional immortality. There is no conscious existence, if any existence at all, of the wicked after death. Matthew 25:46 mentions eternal punishment; but this could refer simply to annihilation itself being permanent, and ending all life and consciousness for eternity.

Psalm 37:38 “But all sinners will be destroyed; the future of the wicked will be cut off.”

Counter-arguments

I. Everlasting separation is morally superior to annihilation. God is morally justified in honouring Man’s choice of separation, but God is not morally justified in removing the existence of a person. This is because Man was created in God’s image and that in itself has intrinsic value that should not be destroyed. God will not treat a person as a means to an end (heaven).

II. Annihilationism is inconsistent with scriptural descriptions of hell and punishment in the afterlife. Sinners continue to exist after death and will be physically resurrected in the 2^nd coming to be judged. Also, annihilation goes against the scriptural view that there are different degrees of punishment for the wicked.

Daniel 12:2 “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Matthew 25:46 “they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” It is obvious here that “eternal” in this context is an attribute of the duration of punishment/reward.

6) How can hell exist alongside of heaven? (CFF p 258-259)

Argument in a nutshell: If heaven is a place without sorrow, how can hell exist if the very existence of the condemned brings great sorrow?

Counter-arguments

I. People in heaven are mature enough to realize that hell is the only morally legitimate outcome for the unsaved. It is a way of honouring “choice”. The soul can rejoice in God’s sense of justice and divine companionship, while having a sense of grief for others.

7) Why didn’t God create only those he knew would follow him? (CFF p 259-261)

Argument in a nutshell: If God knows the future, why did he create people whom he knew would never turn to Him and would therefore end up in hell?

Counter-arguments

I. God created Man on earth with the free will to make choices that affect other people. When God chooses to create someone with free will, he/she will inevitably have an influence on the spiritual growth of others around him/her. This can work in a positive or negative fashion.

Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

II. In traducianism, all souls trace their lineage back to their ancestors. An individual’s soul is derived from the soul of his/her parents and so on. God's creation is finished (Genesis 2:2), thus no new souls are created directly, but are instead transmitted by natural generation just as the body is. This is in contrast with the idea that God creates each soul individually. If traducianism is true, then God only created Adam’s soul. Subsequently, God plays no part in creating other souls of people who make the choice of either turning to Him or refusing Him. God, however, does “balance” different ancestral chains to get as many people into heaven as possible.

(Personal note: I think traducianism is unbiblical in that it implies that a soul can be divided infinitely and that Jesus would not have been born without sin since his soul was derived from Adams)

8) Why doesn’t God give people a second chance? (CFF p 261-263)

Argument in a nutshell: Since God is a loving being, He should give people a second chance after death to repent, now that they are fully aware of His presence.

Catholic Christians believe in purgatory. Non-believers who have not yet known God in their lifetime will stay in a place of purification where they are given a chance to accept God’s grace. The length of their stay varies according to each individual and his willingness to repent. No direct scriptural evidence.

Counter-arguments

I. God would have done everything He could, to give a person a chance to know Him. There will therefore, be no excuse for anyone to claim ignorance. This could explain why the 2^nd coming of Christ has been delayed so far.

Hebrews 9:27 “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed… since what may be known about God is plain to them…for since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities… have been clearly seen…[and] understood… so that men are without excuse.”

II. There is no guarantee that people will take this “second chance” to repent. Indeed, their hearts might be irreversibly hardened by a lifetime of depravity.

Romans 1: 28-32 “… since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind…although they know God’s righteous decree…they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

III. The current life is the period during which Man is held accountable for all his deeds.

2 Cor 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

IV. If people saw the judgment seat of God after death, it would be so coercive that they would no longer have the power of free choice to reject God.

Conclusion

The doctrine of hell is a sensitive issue that should be handled with care, and yet at the same time, cannot be ignored by any Christian. It is normal to feel uncomfortable with the concept of eternal punishment in hell and one should not gloat about the fate of the unsaved. Strobel urges us to use our feelings of discomfort to galvanize us into action to spread the gospel of salvation. The concept of hell can also enables us to better appreciate the free gift of salvation.

“Far be it from you to do such a thing- to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike… Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” – Genesis 18:25

References
1) The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
2) A summary of Christian Doctrine by Louis Berkhof
3) http://www.religioustolerance.org
4) http://bible.org

A review of "Shutter Island"

2010-04-25T10:03:00.000-07:00

        Director Martin Scorsese invites us to take a 138 minute descent into madness and shows us why psychological horror is a dish well served in an asylum for the criminally insane, together with a small helping of a crime thriller. Edward Daniels and Chuck Aule (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo respectively) are US marshalls dispatched to Ashecliffe hospital to investigate the escape of one of its deranged inmates. What follows after is a slow but steady plunge into the unknown, where the audience follows Daniels down a long winding path where nothing is what it seems. Something sinister is afoot in Ashecliffe, and the audience soon realizes that an escaped mental patient is the least of their worries. Through the eyes of Daniels, we see periodic instances where the surroundings meld into unimaginable scenes of cruelty and bloodshed in Dachau. Rumors of "trans-orbital lobotomies", "psychotropic drugs" and human experimentation lurk beneath the veneer of a facility built for the sole purpose of rehabilitative treatment. Even symbols of security like uniformed guards and medical orderlies seem to be twisted into co-conspirators of an unspeakable evil within the walls of the hospital. As Daniels replied to the resident psychologist, "screw this sense of calm".

        What Scorsese has succeeded in, is getting his audience to share in the paranoia that is plaguing the disturbed mind of his protagonist. Just as Daniels finds himself gradually losing his ability to distinguish the surreal from the real, so is the audience led to believe in the improbability of his delusions. We drink from the common cup of madness with Daniels, as we begin to suspect the film's entire premise and when even the wildest conspiracy theories seem to triumph over any rational explanation for the chain of events unfolding before us. Any instance of denial by the staff of Ashecliffe is an admission of guilt. Every gesture and expression of concern belies murderous intent. As with Daniels, we are coaxed by the film to "trust no one", not even the nurses or the doctors in Ashecliffe. This deception is aided in good measure by extremely convincing performances by the supporting cast, with special mention to Emily Mortimer, Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow. Mortimer elicits mixed feelings of sympathy and revulsion as a tortured mental patient with the unfortunate distinction of having drowned all her children. Kingsley and Sydow are well suited to playing the part of two seemingly innocent doctors, disarming the audience with their earnest claims of patient welfare; at the same time, their confidence and serenity amidst the wildest of circumstances make us retreat suspiciously into the warm embrace of paranoia. This is mind rape at its best.

        The film ends on a heavy note, as Daniels asks if it is "better to live as a monster, or to die as a good man". As Richard Corliss states in his review of this film, "some things about ourselves are so painful to acknowledge, we almost wish we could cut them out of our skulls". This also opens the troubling implication that psychological conditioning can create another personal identity that may seem no less real than the original. "Self-existence", as an objective concept in our minds, is juxtaposed with our subjective interpretations of our personal identity. That it is possible to have a long discussion on the themes explored in the film bears good witness to the complexity of its plot. While there are some implausibilities in the plot, the best part of the film lies in its progression and the plot twists that entice the audience. No doubt, we are like "a rat a maze", but it is a highly enjoyable maze to be in. This is a must-watch.

患难中的喜乐

2010-03-10T05:24:00.000-08:00

患难中的喜乐

Mandarin translation. Streamlined from the English version. Subject to changes and editing. Was pretty challenging. Praise the Lord.

主要经文：罗马书5：2－5节，罗马书8：38－39节

           老师，各位弟兄姐妹，大家下午好。今天我的讲道题目是“受苦中的喜乐”，主要经文是取之罗马书5章3－5节和罗马书8章38－39节。在开始时，我想给“受苦”这个词下个定义。“受苦可以说是一种对心灵和肉体的折腾，有时甚至使人死。圣经描述苦难是人人都要经历的，而且严重性在末世时将与日具增。“民要攻打民。。。多处必有。。。灾难。。。弟兄要把弟兄送到死地。。。”　马可福音第13章所写的似乎是一种绝望的情况。既然如此，基督徒为什么在患难中仍然有喜乐？这是因为基督徒知道受苦往往不是与神的爱和计划背道而驰的。使徒保罗在这个问题上给予我们一个很好的答案。让我们来看看究竟是什么能使保罗在受苦时保持喜乐，以及他对将来的盼望。

我认为保罗能在患难中有那么积极的态度是因为一：保罗知道受苦可以是神给我们的试验，为了要造就我们。二：保罗看重神永恒的应许。三：保罗认识到我们的神既爱我们，又了解我们的苦处。

           （1）首先，保罗知道神允许我们受苦，是要我们在患难中学习依靠神，并结出圣灵的果子。在罗马书5章3－4节，保罗说到：“就是在患难中，也是欢欢喜喜的。因为知道患难生忍耐，忍耐生老练。老练生盼望。”　受苦的确能造就我们，也能使我们的灵命变得更加成熟。我们也往往在痛苦时才学到欢喜的珍贵。再说，若不是有苦难临到我们，我们又怎么学习从患难的深坑中爬起来？

我想神要借着我们在苦难时所领悟的道理，去安慰别人。因为受过苦难的人能更有效的体会和支持其他正在受苦的弟兄姐妹。美国著名的盲聋作家海伦•凯勒非但没埋怨自己所遭遇的不幸，反而为着这些感谢神，因为她在苦难中找到神，找到自己，也找到了她的事工。以赛亚书64章8节写着“我们是泥，你是窑匠。我们都是你手的工作。”受苦就是窑匠的工具之一，把我们塑造成精美的瓷具。
话说回来，当我们正在结出圣灵的果子的同时，我们基督徒对未来有何盼望？

           （2）在罗马书5章2节和5节，保罗写着“我们。。。因信得进入现在所站的这恩典中，并且欢欢喜喜盼望神的荣耀。。。盼望不至于羞耻，因为所赐给我们的圣灵将神的爱浇灌在我们心里。”由此可见，保罗多么看重神永恒的应许！这应许是神满有慈爱，借着基督耶稣的牺牲白白的赐给我们，使我们在面临肉体死亡时，仍旧有盼望。我们在世的新生命在于我们与神的关系和好了。耶稣在路加福音12章4－6节实在地提醒我们不要怕“那杀身体以后，不能再作什么的。。。［反而］。。。当怕那杀了以后，又有权柄［把我们］丢在地狱里的。”　在这里，地狱是指一个人完全以神隔绝的处境。只要我们常住在基督里，我们在苦难中不该惧怕，反该欢喜，因为耶稣在约翰福音11章25－26节也说“复活在我，生命也在我。信我的人，虽然死了，也必复活。凡活着信我的人，必永远不死。”　

耶稣的复活不是证明了祂已胜过死亡么？在约翰福音16章33节，耶稣说“在世上你们有苦难。但你们可以放心，我已经胜了世界。”　神应许将这个胜利也赐给凡信靠祂的人。在主耶稣第二次降临时，我们必复活，以神的儿女的身份继承天国。多大的苦难不能使我们与神的爱隔绝，也不能使神的应许落空。现在所受的苦在永恒的眼里显得十分渺小。启示录的重点不在于书里所描述的种种灾难，而是基督耶稣得胜了。难怪保罗在哥林多前书15章55节说“死啊，你的毒钩在哪里？”　

但在永恒的盼望中, 我们要思想我们的神是不是一位不了解痛苦，对我们的遭遇显得莫不关心的神？答案是很明显的“不是”！保罗和我们也从中得到安慰。

           （3）第三点：保罗在患难中有喜乐因为我们的神是一位同我们受过苦，了解我们的悲伤，又深爱我们的神。这一点，在加上我所提到的前两点，使保罗在罗马书8章38－39节“深信无论是死，是生，是天使，是掌权的，是有能的，是现在的事，是将来的事，是高处的，是低处的，是别的受造之物，都不能叫我们与神的爱隔绝。”

耶稣在世上所受的苦是众所皆知的。马可福音14章32－36节描述了一段令人心酸的情景。在客西马尼花园里，耶稣对他门徒说“我心里甚是忧伤，几乎要死”，因为祂知道祂即将面临十字架的刑法。既然神对“患难”这两个字不感到陌生，那么祂也能够体会我们所受的痛苦。在约翰福音11章33－35节中，耶稣看见马利亚与她同来的犹太人因着兄弟拉撒路的死哭泣，“就心里悲叹，又甚忧愁。”耶稣也同众人一起哭了！这正如以赛亚书53章4节记载耶稣“诚然担当我们的忧患，背负我们的痛苦。”

最重要的是，耶稣之所以会受苦，是因为祂爱我们，也要使我们脱离罪恶的捆绑。我们的神是一个多么了解我们，多么爱我们的神！

           总而言之，我们基督徒能在患难中有喜乐是因为苦难能造就我们，我们有永恒的应许，我们也有一位深爱着我们的神，常与我们同在。我们当如何确保自己能在患难时有一个讨神喜悦的态度呢？我认为要常常读经，祷告和与其他主内弟兄姐妹分享经历，借着圣灵的光照，使我们更了解受苦的本质和该有的态度。

愿大家在受苦的当儿能微笑着赞美主说“主啊，从前闻风听见你，现在亲眼看见你。你的恩典够我用。”　谢谢。

Christian Joy in the Face of Suffering

2010-03-04T03:13:00.000-08:00

This is the English version of a little "speech" that I'm supposed to deliver. I thank God for giving me the ability to write it.

      Let us begin with a brief description of suffering. We conventionally know it to be a state of mental and physical pain and misery, possibly leading to death. The Bible also lets us know that suffering is universal and will increase in frequency and intensity with the coming of the End of the Age. "Such things must happen… Nation will rise against nation… There will be earthquakes… famines… Brother will betray brother… All men will hate you…" These quotes from Mark 13:7-8, 12-13 seem to paint a very bleak picture of the fate awaiting all of mankind. So why have Christians not lost hope in the face of so much misery? Sometimes the reason for our suffering cannot be fully comprehended by our own limited understanding. Therefore, we cannot assume that worldly suffering cannot be accommodated into God's love and plans for us. For further elaboration, we turn to Paul the Apostle, who is no stranger to suffering, for what he has to say about this. What gives Paul the ability to rejoice in his sufferings, together with his confidence in this "hope" that all Christians should have?

I can see 3 major reasons to his attitude. The first is that he is aware that suffering can be a trial from God that can have a positive impact on our characters. The second is that his world view is geared towards God's promise of victory and the eternal. The last is that he is aware of a God who suffers with us and loves us.

      (1) Firstly, Paul knows that suffering can be permitted by God as a trial to mold and shape our characters in a positive manner. In Romans 5; 3-4, Paul asserts that "we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope." It is true that the pain and hardship that we experience can bring out the most positive qualities of our soul. We cannot learn to stand against adversity if we have never met adversity in the face at all!

We may also need sorrow to appreciate the value of rejoicing, and to discover an inner strength that we do not even know we possess. It also takes a person who has suffered to understand and empathize with others who are going through similar ordeals. Perhaps this is God's plan to put us in a better position to serve and help others. It was this understanding and faith that enabled Helen Keller, blind and deaf from early childhood, to say, "I thank God for my handicaps, for through them I have found myself, my work, and my God." Just as the most beautiful diamonds must be forcefully cut from raw stone, so must our finest character be shaped through the lessons learnt from suffering. It is written in Isaiah 64:8 "We are the clay, you are the potter." Suffering is but one of the potter's tools to mould us into the best people we can be.

That being said, while our characters are being shaped in the present, do we have any hope for the future?

      (2) Next, in Romans 5:1-2, Paul writes that "...we have peace with God though our Lord Jesus Christ...and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God." Paul has hope for the future because his world view is geared towards the eternal glory lovingly promised to us by God. That is why Christians have hope even in the face of death. Through the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, Christians have a "new life" through a renewed and repaired relationship with God. Jesus rightfully warns us in Luke 12:4-5 to "not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more", but to "fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell", with "hell" being understood as the state of eternal separation of God and Man. As long as our relationship with God remains close throughout, we have nothing to fear and plenty to hope for. This is highlighted in John 11:25-26, where Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die."

The resurrection of Jesus Christ further signifies that He has claimed victory over death. Even better, this victory is promised to us who trust in Him.
In John 3, it is written that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" and in John 16:33, Jesus reminds us that "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Suffering may destroy our physical bodies in the present, but suffering and death can neither remove our loving bond with God, nor can it invalidate His promise that we will all be resurrected in the second coming, with a glorious body that is imperishable. In other words, every believer is a "co-heir" of the kingdom of heaven with Christ, and we will partake in his glory when His kingdom comes. It is of small wonder that Paul exults in 1 Cor 15:55 "Where, O death, is your sting"?

The sufferings of now can seem strangely insignificant in the light of eternity. A renewed relationship with God, and the future glory promised to us in heaven far outweighs the misery from present worldly suffering. At the end of all the horrible suffering and terrible signs described in the book of Revelations, the final message remains clear: Christ is ultimately victorious over all. Therefore we would do well to heed the advice of Peter the Apostle in 1Peter 4:12-13. "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering… but rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed."

Yet even with the promise of the eternal, is our God one who apathetically observes our suffering from a high pedestal, one who is disconnected with our pain? The answer is a resounding no, and we can draw further comfort and hope from that.

      (3) Paul is comforted in his suffering because he knows that Christians have a God who suffers with us, understands our pain and loves us through all of it. This, together with what we have discussed in the earlier paragraphs, allows him to say with confidence in Romans 8:38-39, that "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The intense suffering that Jesus Christ went through is known by all. Mark 14:32-36 describes a particularly emotional series of events in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus describes himself as being "overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death" in the knowledge of his impending crucifixion. Since our Lord is no stranger to suffering, he is in a very good position to understand and empathize with any pain and misery that we face. We need to look no further than John 11:33-35. It is written that Jesus "was deeply moved in spirit and troubled" and "wept" at the sight of Mary weeping due to the death of her brother, Lazarus. Isaiah 53:3-4 tells us that Christ is one who "was despised… [but yet] took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows."

Furthermore, the reason for His suffering in the first place was due to His loving desire to deliver us from sin. We have a God who feels with us and who loves us through everything! Therefore all of us can confidently say that "in all things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us."

      In summary, the reasons for us Christians being able to rejoice even in the face of great suffering are because our characters can be molded through suffering, we have an eternal glory promised to us, and that we are aware of a God who suffers with us and loves us. How should we condition ourselves to face our sufferings in a Christian perspective? I believe that with frequent reading of the Bible, prayer and fellowship, the Holy Spirit will edify and illuminate our understanding of suffering and the correct attitude towards it.

Through this, we have hope for the present, hope for the future, and a loving God who understands what we are going through. What more can we ask for?

In the face of suffering, may we be able to smile and say "O Lord, my ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Your Grace is sufficient for me."

The motive for altruism

2009-12-01T08:00:00.000-08:00

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, altruism is: "the theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action." This term was coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte, who used it to contrast "egoism", which is the self-serving pursuit of happiness. In other words, a deed is considered altruistic if its objective leads to happiness of others over happiness of self.

I will not contest this definition of altruism but I am interested in exploring the motives of altruism. Why do we love at the expense of our wellbeing? Why do we give with seemingly no expectation of receiving?

I have come to believe that there are a few reasons for altruism and that these reasons may or may not exist independently of each other.

1) We are altruistic because we derive happiness from serving others. This is perhaps one of the more idealized motives for being altruistic. From a non-religious perspective, this impulse probably stems from some "innate goodness" in Man. From a religious perspective, the desire for self-sacrificial love to others originates from God and is planted in the hearts of Man by God. Here is an interesting question to ponder. If we do good because we derive happiness from doing so, what happens if our primary drive for doing good is the subconscious pursuit of happiness of self? One criticism of volunteer tourism is that many participants are in it for the "feel good" factor. Think of it as acquiring quick and easy endorphins if you will. While this is in no way intended to belittle their efforts to improve the lives of others, it does make one wonder if our actions can be considered altruistic in this case.

Maybe the line is drawn at whether our desire to bring happiness to others outweighs the pleasure we derive from doing good, but it is extremely difficult for us to think like this.

2) We are altruistic because other people around us are altruistic. Humans have a strange propensity to emulate the behavior of other people around them. If a person is surrounded by altruistic people, odds are his/her behavior will also incline towards altruism. This could mean that altruistic behavior can be "nurtured" even if it were not part of our "nature" to do so. However, what if the person is taken out and put into a crowd of people with selfish desires? Will he then cease to be altruistic?

Of course, reciprocal altruism should fall into this category as well. Simply put, I will sacrifice my wellbeing for yours because you have done the same for me previously. On a basic level, doing good can be seen as a "repayment" of sorts for being the recipient of goodwill from others. This vaguely resembles mutualism in nature, whereby two different species derive benefits from interacting with each other. Many people are also more disposed to go the extra mile to help someone whom they have a good impression of, rather than someone whom they are less familiar with or whom they are on bad terms with.

3) We are altruistic because we covertly and subconsciously hold the belief that there must be a reward for performing good deeds. There are people who believe in accumulating "karma" through their acts of kindness. There are also people who believe that performing good deeds is a ticket to heaven. Then there are those people who do good in order to avoid being reincarnated as a pig.

It is possible for non-religious motivations to fall into this category too. Maybe doing charity work will earn me "brownie points" with that attractive female next door. Maybe being actively involved in volunteer work will earn me the respect of others. Such thoughts are unwholesome but not uncommon amongst people.

Category 3 is arguably the most twisted motivation for being altruistic. I doubt people who fall into this category most of the time can be even considered "altruistic" at all.

4) We are altruistic because of responsibility and duty. While feelings of "altruism" and "duty" can exist independently of each other, it is often hard to tell the difference. Maybe we feel obliged to be altruistic due to various expectations thrust upon us, even if there is no possibility of reward or recognition. A priest certainly has the moral imperative thrust upon his mantle to be selfless towards others. Perhaps some of us view volunteer work and charitable acts as a form of social responsibility. I do not think it's wrong to be motivated by duty, but this cannot be our sole drive to be altruistic. In another perspective, some people can be altruistic because a divine authority commands us to do so. If it is decreed by God that one should "love thy neighbor", then it becomes a moral obligation for the pious.

This list of reasons is most certainly not exhaustive. There are possible socio-biological reasons to altruism as well. In this perspective, altruism is the "reduction of individual fitness to increase the fitness of other individuals in the population". If the benefits derived from the increase in group fitness outweigh the costs to the fitness of the individual, then altruism would constitute logical behavior amongst animals. For more information, read up on "Hamilton's rule" and "Kin Selection".

What else is there to consider? We may strive to achieve the good of others at great personal cost, but what happens if the end result of our actions is detrimental to them in the long run due to our inherent limitations or our lack of foresight? Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man more fish and perhaps he will never learn how to fish for himself. Mind boggling.

Intelligence vs Wisdom

2009-05-07T10:27:00.000-07:00

A biologist, a physicist, a chemist and an old man were walking through the desert. They had been trekking for days under the sweltering sun and were extremely thirsty.

Suddenly, all of them spotted a glass of water magically appearing in front of them.

The biologist gestured excitedly at the glass of water. "Oh look! An inorganic liquid containing tens of thousands of microorganisms!"

Unable to resist, the chemist chipped in. "No. Its better said to be a collection of polar molecules and an universal solvent!"

The physicist shook his head. "Fools. It's clearly a Newtonian fluid with its particles in constant motion."

Without uttering a word, the old man strode forward and promptly quenched his thirst.

Sometimes intelligence is overrated. Wisdom however, is not.

A discussion of "Revolutionary Road"

2009-04-16T04:54:00.000-07:00

"Revolutionary Road" starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, is a powerful film that offers an enticing glimpse into the stark realities of human nature and marital relationships.

In the movie, DiCaprio and Winslet play Frank and April Wheeler, who are a young couple with two children. The Wheeler family live in a suburban estate located near a street called "revolutionary road" and most of the film's events unfold in this seemingly idyllic neighbourhood. They are the epitome of a perfect couple and are the subject of adoration by their neighbours.

However, the audience is quickly hinted that things are not as perfect as they appear. With the skillful use of several flashbacks and some well-scripted scenes of discord between the Wheelers, the director exposes the various cracks in the facade of an ostensibly perfect relationship. Within the first few minutes of the show, the couple are already bickering violently without achieving any compromise or resolution. There is a subtle sense of dread that the Wheelers are unable to understand the roots of their marital woes and their recurring problems with each other set the stage up for a tragic conclusion. The show is awash with dramatic irony when the Wheelers are constantly being complimented by their neighbours for being a "perfect couple" and only the audience is fully aware that things are not a bed of roses.

The director also succeeds in fleshing out the personalities of the Wheelers through their quarrels. Frank is loud, outspoken and aggressive. He seeks swift and straightforward solutions to complex emotional issues - an approach that is commendable but insensitive. In contrast, April is more reserved and thoughtful, although no less emotional than her husband. She often prefers to be left alone to collect her thoughts and is less emotionally transparent. She often clings onto past memories to be reminded of her love for her husband and feels constantly stifled by the dull, quotidian beats of being a homemaker. The present is only made alive through her recollections. "I've felt [alive and real]... before - when you first made love to me." She tells her husband in one scene. She only sustains herself in the present with her recollections of a better past, but is unable to communicate this effectively to Frank. This only serves to strain their relationship even further. Winslet and DiCaprio give a laudable performance here - they are able to potray emotions in gritty realism and not once was I left in doubt of their on-screen chemistry. The anguish in their eyes is especially haunting - a window into their troubled psyches. This believability only makes the show more emotionally affecting - when the boundaries between reel life and real life are blurred.

I will not spoil the ending here but I walked away from the theatre with some reflections. No human relationship can truly satisfy ALL of our wants and needs. It is unreasonable to expect our loved ones to tailor their personalities to accomodate every single one of our whims and fancies. Someone who can do that is not being true to him/herself. Subjecting your life partner to such inflated expectations will only serve to disappoint us. If we are unable to realize this truth, then the inevitable sense of disappointment will slowly extinguish the flames of love and hope in any human relationship.
April wanted Frank to "revert to his old self" again - to repossess the zeal and recklessness of his younger days. I believe that she fell in love with the "accidental forms" of Frank's personality rather than the "essential forms" of his innate character. Simply put, she was enamoured by components of his personality that will only mellow or change with age, and less so by parts of his character that are immutable and intrinsic to him. This contributed significantly to their failed relationship. It is then important for us to make the effort to obtain reasonably accurate evaluations about the personalities of people we meet. This allows us to make more informed choices about whether to commit to a relationship and also enables us to better appreciate the "beautiful imperfections" of people whom we love. If we love someone, then we ought to love the whole package in all its glamour but with its attendant flaws.

Of course, to be able to understand what makes someone tick involves a good understanding of human nature. I would also argue that having a good understanding of human nature involves a sufficient level of self-awareness. How else can a person claim to comprehend the complexities of other personalities if he/she has not the foggiest idea of his own nature? In any relationship, we need to be cognizant of our own idiosyncrasies in order to be able to manage our eccentricities in line with the personalities of our beloved. For example, if a person is aware that he/she tends to be fussy and perfectionistic, he/she will be better able to tolerate life with a more laid back and easygoing partner. This reduces the odds of having irrational flare ups over petty differences in opinions and lifestyles. Knowing ourselves also enables us to articulate specific needs and wants to our companions effectively, thus fostering a deeper level of communication and understanding. The moral of the story is that you cannot be true to a person without being true to yourself as well.

I'll give this film a solid 3.9/5. A solid performance by the cast accompanied by wonderful direction and an engaging script. It would have been higher if not for the slightly disappointing ending, where the director offered the audience with absolutely no glimpse of optimism. This show is melancholic and sober - perhaps overly so.

On a side note, I'd recommend watching "Departures" as well. Just avoid watching both films in the same day (It's too emotionally draining).

If you are interested, I have a friend who writes thoughtful movie reviews on a regular basis. For more information, visit www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com

Top 10 list of disturbing events in 2008

2008-12-25T06:16:00.000-08:00

As the year draws to a close, I can't help but feel compelled to recollect various noteworthy events that have dominated our headlines (if not, then at least our discussions). Without further ado, this is my list of the top 10 most disturbing events of the year 2008, in no particular order of demerit. (I will follow up with a list of top 10 most uplifting events next time)

Top 10 most disturbing events

1. The Madoff fiasco

This swindler masqueraded as a wealthy philanthropist and funded several charitable organizations including the Lauri Strauss Leukemia Foundation and the Picower foundation among many others. He also managed the funds and securities of many investors, valued at 50b USD or more. Well it all turned out to be a giant "Ponzi Scheme", in which investors are paid with returns obtained from money paid by other investors, rather than by money obtained from profit. Things started to go downhill once enough investors chose to withdraw their money and Madoff could not meet those committments. Now, the saddest part of this fiasco is not about how an apparently generous philantrophist could turn out so wrong; nor is it about the numerous investors who have lost millions through his scam. It is about the various charitable organizations that had to close down because of this affair. And to think that Madoff had a excellent reputation for being trustworthy and altruistic prior to these events. Scary - especially when a scam involves so many innocent people.

For more information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13investors.html?pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

2. The AIG bailout (post)

There is nothing inherently wrong with saving a company from ruin if it also means protecting the money and insurance policies of countless clients. But not if some of the bailout money is used for "luxury spas" for executives and ridiculous performance bonuses of up to 5 million. Shouldn't every cent be spent on cutting costs, reducing redundancies and securing assets? Oh whoops.

For more information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100702604.html

3. Melamine tained milk products

Unscrupulous suppliers? Check. Massive loss of public confidence in all forms of milk products originating from China? Check. Kidney stones in infants? Check. So many innocent children suffered for what? A scheme to boost apparent protein levels in milk? Argh. And this will not be the last time children suffer due to amoral businessmen.

4. Euthanasia is screened on TV

On 10th December 2008, scientist Craig Ewert becomes the first person to ever broadcast an assisted suicide to viewers all over the world. In this documentary/reality TV/whatever you want to call it, he drugs himself before turning off his ventilator. While one can see it as a brave human standing up for his right to die, I find the prospect of thousands of viewers tuning in to see a person take his life quite unsettling. This also challenges existing boundaries of what constitutes acceptable material for television.

For more information:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5315633.ece

5. Lip synching at the 2008 Beijing Olympics

For those that have forgotten, the 9 year old girl that you saw singing "Ode to the Motherland" at the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony was actually lip synching to the voice of 7 year old Yang Peiyi. Peiyi could not appear live in front of the audience because of... crooked teeth? Wait... are we watching the Olympics opening ceremony or China's next top model? And of course we like to say we don't judge by appearances. Ha.

For more information:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/13/asia/AS-OLY-China-Lip-Synched-Song.php

6. Terrorist attacks (in every country)

This deserves a place on my list. Every year. Regardless of statistics. Regardless of country. Regardless of rationale for nothing more than senseless murder.

7. President Bush's response to the aftermath of the Iraq War.

First, President Bush justified his Iraq War by claiming that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs. Okay... but that turned out to be untrue. Blame it on the intelligence. Fine, we buy that.

Next, he justified the war by claiming that Iraq was a base for Al Qaeda operatives. Well okay... until that turned out to be untrue either! And the best part has to be his response: "So what?"

Sorry? so what if everything you have said has turned out to be inaccurate??

I guess "so what?" is a fitting answer to the deaths of countless innocents and soldiers and the resulting geopolitical instability from a hastily declared war. Very nice.

Watch the shocking interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBx5QH3CqvQ

Disturbing? You bet. So what?

8. Hitler admirer gains foothold in Israeli Politics (almost)

Uh... the irony. Mr Moshe Feiglin, an extremist right-wing politician and an admirer of Adolf Hitler's policies, almost secured a place in Israel's parliament by joining an established political party and getting his facist supporters to vote for him as a legislative candidate. His views include the denial of Palestinian existence and their corresponding civil rights. Sounds familiar? Its almost like the behavior of a certain dictator during WWII.

For more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin

The Straits Times, Thursday December 25th 2008, Page A21

9. The Rod Blagojevich scandal

Illinois senator Rod Blagojevich was recently charged for some really eye popping schemes. They include an attempt to sell a US senate seat to the highest bidder because it "is a f****** valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." How brutally frank.

What is more disturbing is further allegations that he threatened to withdraw his funding of a pediatric hospital (Children's Memorial Hospital in Illinois) if the CEO failed to support his political campaign.

Sometimes the things we are capable of doing for the sake of power just amaze me.

For more information:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/blagojevich.affidavit/

10. Natural Disasters coupled with callous indifference

I know that natural disasters occur every year and are pretty much inevitable. But it's depressing to know that the death toll could have been lower if officials had ensured that people received adequate warnings before the disaster and if buildings had been constructed according to internationally recognized safety standards. It doesn't make any sense to construct shoddy buildings in areas prone to earthquakes. Oh wait... i forgot that cutting costs and making profits often take priority over actual human lives.

End

Disclaimer: This list was not meant to be offensive or insulting in any way. Opinions aired here are of my own and might not be objective or totally accurate. Visit the hyperlinks and websites for more up to date information.

The Relative and the Absolute in Morality

2008-12-13T08:16:00.000-08:00

"There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair." - Albert Einstein

Morality is a tricky philosophical concept. Some believe it to be nothing more than a social construct subject to the caprices of Man; others think it as a set of codified laws inspired by the divine, universal and eternal in nature. We can surmise then, that morality can be seen within the lens of a relativist or an absolutist. Both positions are not without merit. So called moral standards indeed change with the prevailing zeitgeist of our societies. For example, the consumption of alcohol in the United States was considered immoral in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This sentiment was reflected in the 18th amendment of the United States constitution which prohibited alcohol. Over time however, this "moral standard" became increasingly unpopular and eventually these prohibitive laws were repealed in the 21st amendment in 1933. It is now unthinkable for modern societies to ban alcohol on the basis of morality. Perhaps we can conclude that morality is relative and evolving.

Yet, there is a disturbing corollary to moral relativism. If moral standards can indeed be taken as relative, then it would suggest that all deeds, no matter how dastardly, can be condoned; it's just a matter of the degree of tolerance and willingness of the society at large. This cannot be right. Heinous crimes like mass murder or rape can never be completely justified in any circumstances. We find little redeeming quality in the dictator who commits genocide at the behest of his people. We condemn soldiers for the slaughter of innocents in war. Taken in this light, moral standards appear to be absolute!

It seems that neither relativism nor absolutism can be the sole descriptor of morality. What then, can we make out from this tangled web of right and wrong? It is my opinion that solution to this problem lies in the idea that moral relativity operates within the framework of absolute morality. This can be illustrated by a question: "Is the glass half empty or half full?" The answer of course, varies with individual perception. However, this answer does not affect the existence or properties of said glass, of which half of its volume is occupied by fluid. A glass which is "half full" is taken in reference to a completely filled glass. Similarly, a glass which is "half empty" can only have meaning if the concept of an empty glass exists. In turn, an "empty glass" can only exist if the concept of a glass without any fluid exists.

This means that human and societal perceptions of morality, while relative, fall along a continuum of absolute good and evil. Morality seems relative to us because absolute good and evil are concepts that transcend mortal boundaries. Most events happening around us can be viewed in shades of gray and it is impossible for any human to act as the sole arbiter of right and wrong. To give us some credit, our limited appreciation for absolute morality enables us to derive certain approximations of right and wrong, and on this basis we define moral standards and laws. I call it a form of moral "sixth sense". It is one that is imperfect and one that can be twisted at will. This must constitute the relative aspect of morality. Thankfully, our constantly shifting positions on morality do not influence the definitions of absolute good and evil - definitions that can only be understood by the divine alone.

Since it is not humanly possible to define absolute good and evil, it would be a farce to view morality as a concept independent of the divine. I believe that morality can be better understood through close communion with God, a being of absolute good. This will heighten our perception of good and evil (though our worldly perceptions can never be perfect). An attempt to dissociate the divine from morality is hubris on our part - for none of us have any authority to ultimately define good and evil. If humans do not have the mandate to pronounce absolute judgment on each other, then absolute morality must acknowledge the presence of the divine.

If we choose to take the easy way out and dismiss all notions of absolute morality, then things become more ridiculous. A universe where moral values are purely relative is a universe devoid of good and evil. What is considered "just" for one society can be easily viewed as "unjust" by other societies. If there exists no absolute framework in morality, then there can be little meaningful debate of what constitutes "right or wrong". It becomes a matter of our terribly subjective minds. If morality becomes reduced to mere opinion, then judicial law becomes laughable as well. Hence, I would argue that morality cannot be a "purely human affair" as Einstein suggests, but a divine one as well.

Qooties.

N.B I will not elaborate on how we should achieve a "closer communion" with God. This is not a theological essay, although some of my arguments are based on the premise that a divine being exists. And no, I do not think that crimes in the name of religion are divinely inspired. Any other comments or opinions on my post are most welcome =)

The Aftermath

2007-11-22T18:57:00.000-08:00

I raise thee from the depths again O Blog! Return from pariah.

*edit: I started this post on 22nd November 2007... and I never got to complete it until like... after christmas? lol =(

So the As ended as quickly as it came. I shall not speculate about my results cause It won't change anything. I have the least confidence in my Econs and GP papers but I'm certain that I have tried my best and so be it then. =p

After the As I went out with a group of classmates for a movie and a buffet lunch and Yuki Yaki. Some of us watched Beowulf while the others went for the enchanted. (x_x I shan't comment on that Disney film.) I know that quite a lot of people are fixated on Beowulf's...

sudhlfaodivhnsfkosdfn bzzzzt.

Error 404: User has forgotten what he had wanted to say.

I apologize for my laziness but I had to get this half baked post out of the way =p

Fast forward to 19th Dec 2007. Woot! I've finally learnt how to bike. 2 hour crash course. Thanks guys!

Fast forward to 24th Dec 2007. Watched National Treasure for $9.50. T'was pretty entertaining but the logic starts to fall apart when you think about it for a minute. I think I can make National Treasure 3: The sacred Merlion. Nicholas Cage discovers a sacred glyph inscribed on the base of the Merlion statue by the Sumatran Prince Sang Nila Utama. The glyph turns out to be a treasure map indicating the location of an ancient rifle used by Gen. Yamashita during the invasion of Singapore in WWII (Yes time machines were invented by Singapore.) Of course the trail will culminate in an exciting chase sequence in the caverns located beneath the Istana.

Did I mention that Nicholas Cage will take about 5 minutes to link the clues together? Wait.. since the clues are rather obscure I think he'll take 6 minutes instead. Tut tut.

Oooh fast forward to Christmas. Merii Kurisumasu! May God be with us all. Looking forward to X Mas celebrations with my class and the Interact Ex Co =D

The Big As

2007-10-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

Yep... It is here. It cometh. But before the "final apocalyptic end" approaches(as my GP tutor Mr Wong loves to say), here are some of the random emotions and observations that I have felt and seen during this very last lap. It'll be fun (for me at least) to read this post again after the A levels.

Without further ado, these are the final words of Chia Minghao, written approximately 22 days before the end.

Emotions felt
1) Anticipation
Ahh the main course that we have ordered 6 years ago is going to be served right at our table in a moment. 考场十分中，场外十月功。I am confident that all the blood, sweat and tears that we have poured into our studies are going to bear fruit very soon. Don't even get me started on the endless opportunities and experiences available for us after we graduate from college. *Licks his lips* The litmus test of our understanding and knowledge of our subjects. Bring it on. Let us all say to ourselves that at the end of this: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." (2Tim 4:7)

2) Fear
Fear. The most cunning hunter of Men. It understands the tension within its quarry and helps to perpetuate that emotion. It stalks you, leisurely slinking in the shadows, waiting to pounce. You look around nervously, trying to catch a glimpse of any movement that might betray its position - until it pounces - instantaneously becoming a dancing dervish of crazed exam practice questions and long forgotten lecture notes. Defeat this beast and the battle for the As is half-won.

3)Contentment
I feel contented with what I have now. Its pretty random and I'm not sure about its relevance to the As but ya the feeling is there.

Observations

1) I notice plenty of blogs with posts about the A levels haha! It really takes center stage in our lives now eh?

2) A massive deluge of notes and exam tips on the EMB. Hey no surprises here but I do wish all of these could have been spread out more evenly across the entire year. Sometimes I feel like I'm learning more in one month than what I have learnt in the past 5.5 years or so.

3) The relativity of time. I notice that time just seems to accelerate as I approach the As. Every hour and every minute becomes increasingly little to me. In J1 I would think: "Ooh wow 4 hours of study is pretty decent for a day!" Right now... 4 hours of study per day hardly seems enough, given the incredible amount of material that we have to revise. The weeks fly by alarmingly quickly too... it just felt like yesterday when I wrote the last full stop for Prelim Bio Paper.

4) Reminisces. I gaze into the depths and I remember the good old days... the day I stepped into TCHS as a runty little brat... the day I realized that I did like SJAB after all... the day I walked into college (and saw a couple kissing at the bus stop at 6 am)... the day I joined Interact club... The day I...
Well I'm glad I do not regret my 6 years in TCHS/HCI. Sure I made mistakes both big and small but I think I came out from it all the better. I got to know more friends and more people got to know me as a person(I sure hope so >.>). I would like to remember you not as "just some guy/girl who eventually excelled for his As", but rather as the "guy/girl to whom I enjoyed spending my time with and who will always remain in my soul as a fond memory (and perhaps much more)." At the same time I hope that others may think of me in the same way as well...
Wouldn't it be nice to look at HCI and to be reminded of all your friends?

5) Randomness

Jia You for the As.

歌颂我主

2007-08-04T22:41:00.000-07:00

外面的世界。。。是谁分清一条条界线？
一边是白，一边是黑，
一边是爱，一边是恨。。。
一边是一种要求，一边是另一种标准
我害怕，我徘徊，恐惧一不小心掉入深渊！

是的，我的神。求你救我脱离试探与凶恶。

~

When the oceans rise and thunders roar, I will soar with You above the storm!
Father, you are King over the flood... I will be still - know You are God.

~

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed!

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

~

愿神与你同在。

Harry "the Happy" Potter

2007-07-15T06:46:00.000-07:00

Finally one post after so many weeks of inactivity =D.

On Friday, my batch had our first major SJAB movie outing this year and boy it really triggered off some fond memories of the crazy things that we did (or had to do) as cadets. We spoke of footdrill, of NCOs from days long past and of the unforgettable amulet. I'll miss those days, those days when I was still a silly little impressionable cadet =/
It feels great to go out as a squad once more and I'm frankly quite amazed at the strength of the bonds between all of us, even more so considering that many of us wanted to quit SJAB in our first year =p

We also managed to get pretty good seats for the fifth Potter film(though poor Terence had to rush to Cine to join us). By all accounts the film was a decent watch although it really lacked an "oompf" in certain areas. Here is a breakdown of the good, the bad and the ugly (at least from my POV) anyway:

(SPOILER ALERT. Read at your own peril.)

The Good:
1) Sterling performances by Alan Rickman and Imelda Staunton as Snape and Umbridge respectively. Rickman has a voice positively dripping with sarcasm and contempt and that really fits the bill for Snape. Staunton annoys the audience so well with her high pitched snigger and her tut-tutting that you'll actually hate her character (which is good since you are meant to dislike Umbridge anyway)

2) The wand duel between Lord Voldemort and Prof. Dumbledore was visually impressive and quite spectacular. I think the Ministry of Magic set looks rather stunning too.

3) The numerous flashbacks and cut-ins were done with great effect, giving most viewers a glimpse of the mental turmoil within Harry.

4) Thankfully, the show did not place too much focus on the "omg-im-an-angsty-teenager-watch-me-agonize" aspect of Harry, which would have been excrutiating to watch. The constant tantrums that Harry kept throwing did put me off the fifth book (I liked it the least).

5) The daily Prophet scenes were cleverly used to summarize and highlight important plot points.

The Bad:

1) The film took plenty of liberties with the plot. Of course I understand that not every aspect of the book can be captured on the screen but certain details have been left out or mutilated. Gone are the Quidditch matches that served to bring out the camaraderie amongst the Griffindors (i.e no cheers of "Weasley is my king"). The film also largely ignored the role of the centaurs and fails to explain why they got so angry in the first place. Harry was not supposed to have heard the prophecy directly too =/ And where is the scene when McGonagal was stunned by Umbridge?

For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix

2) Insufficient screen time for most of the characters. This film did not do justice to the likes of McGonagal, Draco Malfoy and many others. Many characters were just glossed over or given 1-2 measly lines that had little impact, if any at all.

The ugly:
1) The film feels like it is on fast forward mode all the time. Viewers are just introduced to a scene or a juicy plot point and seconds later everyone is forced to move along to the next scene. It gets really jarring at times. For example we are shown a brief flashback of Snape's early days in Hogwarts, where he was bullied by James Potter. Now this was a really important point in the book since it revealed why Snape bore so much animosity towards Harry and it served to complicate the relationship between the two of them. However the film merely gave us a few unsatisfactory scenes lasting no more than a few seconds, followed by a cut showing an agonized Potter and then.. nothing. Next event.

2) Mishandling of the death of Sirius Black. You know something is screwed when a character dies just seconds after he appears =/

That really sums up my thoughts for the fifth movie. Overall rating: 3/5

BTW I can't wait for HP book 7... preordered my copy =D

I Love You

2007-06-03T03:52:00.000-07:00

"I Love You". "Ai Shiteru". "我爱你". A few words make up a loaded phrase. What exactly does it signify when we say it and mean it?

At the molecular level, love is the passage of electrical impulses from neuron to neuron and the subsequent release of the hormone oxytocin and beta-endorphin from the pituitary gland located at the base of the skull. Oyxtocin and beta-endorphin bind to special receptors located on the surface of certain neurons to effect anything from altruism to sexual activity. In short, biology has defined "love" to be an electric and chemical response that occurs within all of us.

At the metaphysical level, love is the seemingly irrational joy derived from seeing others benefit from your actions. Love is the impulse that enables Man to sacrifice personal gain for the good of others. Love is the intrinsic value we place on the welfare of others. Love is the desire to see that someone else's needs are respected and the willingness to place his/her needs above yours. In short, love is the antipode of pragmatism.

At the spiritual level, love is the personal relationship one has with God and the central dogma of faith. Love is something that we should give to everyone, including your enemies. (Not an easy task to accomplish)

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." (1 Corinthians 13:1-7)

Do not treat the phrase "I Love You" lightly. For it is a term of great significance from the molecular to the spiritual.

McCarelessness

2007-05-25T21:55:00.000-07:00

I think I found an inconsistency in McDonald's pricing. (Not sure if you have noticed this before.) Maybe its a ingeniously hidden math question to stump all consumers.

A McChicken "Extra Value" meal costs $5.60. It includes the burger, medium fries and a small coke.

When bought separately, a McChicken burger costs $2.00. A small coke costs $1.00. One packet of medium fries cost $2.10.

$2.00 + $2.10 + $1.00 = $5.10.

I see a meal is actually more than the sum of its parts.

Extra Value Meal indeed. Nuff said.

An adolescent's take on predetermination

2007-05-19T06:05:00.000-07:00

Good things seldom happen to me at fast food chains. On my way to my church seminar this morning I dropped by at McDonalds for a quick bite. Ordering my cup of ice milo, I took my drink to a nearby table to wait for the rest of my meal. It was a darn long wait and before I knew it, my eyes were glued to the pages of a book that I'd had borrowed from my friend a few days before. My throat felt a little dry. Instinctively, I reached out to grab my cup of cool beverage on the table - or so I thought.

Three seconds and a few guilty sips later, I quickly put the cup back down and pretended that nothing had ever happened.

Oh horror of horrors - It turned out that I had actually swiped that ice milo from a kid dining at that table right in front of me! My ice milo stood innocently just a small distance away from his. I cannot imagine what I would have done if a random stranger just came along and started sipping at my drink but the young kid was blissfully oblivious. I remember my mum always used to tell me that my absent-mindedness would kill me someday. Thanks mum! At least that kid was equally absent-minded. =x

Faux pas aside, was I to solely blame for my own actions? Or were they the consequence of some unknown entity better known as fate... or God? Interestingly the church seminar that I went to touched a little on predetermination and destiny. It set me pondering a little - Can free will exist in the world of God? Are our fates predestined by God?

Well my personal take on this issue is a resounding yes - free will DOES exist in the world of God.

At first glance this would seem to be a ridiculous notion. After all, God and free will seem to be diametrically opposed. He is the master and we follow his instructions - or do we? It is evident in the bible that Man has the ability to make choices - and not all of these choices are pleasing to the Lord. There have been many cases of transgression against the Lord. In Genesis it was Eve who chose to heed the malicious lies of the snake and to swallow the forbidden fruit. It was Adam's choice to listen to his wife and disobey his Creator. In the book of 1 Samuel, It was King Saul's choice to turn his back against God and to make numerous attempts on David's life. In the book of Jonah, the wayward prophet made a decision to escape from the mission entrusted to him by God. And the list goes on.

Such actions are only possible because the Lord is not an autocratic dictator. He expects us to love Him and obey Him out of our own volition. The fact that not everyone in this world believes in Him is evidence of free will. A relationship with God without free will is not love - it is compulsion. That is something I believe my Creator does not desire. This is also why the Apostle Paul said that Christians are "justified by faith" and not by following religious dogma. Christianity is first and foremost a personal relationship with God and one which we willingly enter.

Man is then faced with the choice of listening to the voice of God or succumbing to his own temptation and sliding down the slippery slope of sin. This can also partly answer why evil exists if God is so good and all powerful. Simply put, evil exists because Man exercises his free will in contrary to the will of God.

Now this begs the next question. Does this then render God ineffectual and powerless? Not so! I believe that the will of God is stronger than anything Man can conceive of. The Lord preserves the free will of Man but he is not constrained by this. God can impose his will and his judgement on all creation while at the same time allowing them to make choices. If we choose to sin, we suffer the consequences of God's wrath. Whatever we do, there is no escaping the final judgement with the second coming of Christ. I think that the Lord manipulates our destiny on a more macroscopic level while we "choose" our path on a more miniscule level. To put it simply, the Lord decides the Beginning and the End; the Alpha and the Omega. He ensures that evil does not go unpunished and the faithful do not go unrewarded but at the same time he allows us humans to decide what paths we choose to follow and how we wish to reach our endpoints. We determine the consequences that we will face in the later parts of our lives. We determine how we want to treat others and how we want to impact their lives. (Of course the Lord can interfere with some of these choices and he does that in accordance to his will) We can choose to indulge in a life of debauchery and sin for the rest of our lives or we can choose to be a virtuous and faithful person. Either way the endpoint is still the same - a personal interview with your Creator at the pearly gates. You determine your own testimonial.

That is about all I have to say about this issue. Feel free to disagree or agree with my opinions - after all you have the free will to do so. =D

PS: Ah yes I am fully responsible for my embarassing actions at McDonalds.

Weary

2007-05-14T05:59:00.000-07:00

14/5/07 - Monday

A chocolate coated Minghao sells for 0.50 cents. You might get a Ming Wei free too.

Ah the bees are attracted to... my chocolatey fragrance. My honey coated epidermis provides a massive olfactory assault.

Oh yea bubble tea inflation! 1 cup um.. 50 cents.. no wait! ill throw in ten cups for two bucks. Street hawker style bargaining. Yay a carton of damned tea whisked away from my sight! What? o_0 80 cups of green apple goo? Is it closer to a hundred or fifty?

Zomg we are done by the heptamerous hour! And there was much clapping and rejoicing.

Therefore, let no Man ever have the gall to claim that the Interact Club is a club for the lax.

Therefore, let the hypocrites who remain by the sides and who dare complain of inactivity be silenced.

Lyrics

2007-05-06T17:50:00.000-07:00

"History is like a never ending waltz and the three beats of War, Peace and Revolution repeat ad infinitum."

Some lyrics from Les Miserables (A Play)

*Opens with trumpets

Soldiers:
You at the barricades listen to this!
No one is coming to help you to fight!
You're on your own
You have no friends
Give up your guns - or die!

People:
Damn their warnings
Damn their lies
They will see the people rise!
Damn their warnings
Damn their lies
They will see the people rise!

So true o_o

Stoicism and Us

2007-04-29T05:30:00.000-07:00

"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters." -Epictetus

Endurance, levelheadeness and simplicity are enshrined in the basic tenets of Stoicism. It is small wonder that the Stoicism was considered one of the main schools of thought in Ancient Greece, along with Skepticism, Cynicism and Epicureanism. (But we will not go into that). I do not profess to be well versed in the aspects of Stoicism but certain ideas championed by the Stoics have a mystical appeal to me and I think all of us would benefit from a little bit of stoicism in our lives.

One of the most important ethical principles of stoicism is the mastery of the passions through reflection and reasoning. Now the stoics do not equate emotion to passion but rather, "the passions" represent the excessive impulses that cause us to work against reason. Thus, it would be wrong to claim that the stoics argue for a complete catharsis of emotions insofar as normal impulses can still be part of a functional soul. Instead according to the stoics, reason and virtue are the keystones of our lives and the natural order of the universe - Anything else that does not interfere with our virtue ought to be treated with indifference.
For example, the stoics would view failing your tests as something that should be viewed with indifference. Any negative emotions from failing your tests is considered irrational and agonizing. Such irrationality is part of the "passions" that the stoics urge all of us to suppress. How then do we achieve such control over the passions? By deciding whether such matters are predetermined or not. In a nutshell: If our misfortunes are predetermined(Aproharesis), then it is within our power (Prohairesis) to determine if we should be unhappy or not by sound judgement. (Diharesis)

As the stoic Epictetus famously remarked: "I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?"

Now, I do not agree with the stoics that Man is being of reason but there is beauty in the stoic concept of attempting to master one's emotions. While we are first and foremost subject to our passions, I believe it is prudent for us to supress some of our "natural" instincts. When misfortune befalls us it is "natural" to be steeped in misery but not necessarily healthy to do so. To be stuck in the quagmire of moods is the greatest disservice one can do to his soul. Notwithstanding our tendency to experience mood swings, I believe that we owe ourselves the duty to free ourselves from the entanglements of irrationality as far as possible. We will never rid ourselves of negative feelings like jealousy or anger but we can tell ourselves that we need not be tormented by our emotions all the time. I believe happiness comes not in the absence of despair but in the ability to conquer despair. That is an ideal that I think is worth pursuing and I'm certain that God can grant us the grace to overcome our human nature. (This is but one difference between Christian faith and Stoicism)

Attain some mastery over your feelings. You owe yourself that much at least.

Introverts 101

2007-04-14T23:25:00.000-07:00

It is not the easiest task in the world for an Introvert to live in a society like ours. Studies have shown that Extroverts or Extraverts, depending on how you want to spell it, make up anywhere from 60-75% of the World's population. Of course there is nobody is completely extroverted or introverted so it all depends on our relative positions in the introverted-extroverted spectrum. The world needs BOTH such characters and it would benefit us greatly if both sides learn more about each other.

Well... being an introvert myself (And a highly expressed one at that) I think ill write a mini FAQ to introverts of sorts. Mainly because societal perceptions of us Introverts don't quite do us justice. Ive been taken in by such perceptions as well... since I used to think that introversion means being anti-social. Well it isnt.

This begs the next question. What on earth are Introverts? What makes them tick?

Introverts...
1) are people who regain energy by being alone for certain periods of time. Note that this does not equate the Introvert to a "Hermit" or a "Recluse"... but it just means that sometimes we want peace and quiet so that we can recharge our batteries for the next social event

2) have different brain functions than Extroverts. Studies have shown that pathways in the parasympathetic nervous system were more active in Introverts than Extroverts. Extroverts use neural pathways in the sympathetic nervous system. The parasympathetic system is called the "rest and digest" system which functions to slow heart rate and conserve energy. This also means that Introverts are less "pumped up" with adrenaline than normal... and could also explain why we "stone" or get tired more easily.

3) can be sociable and talkative. It just depends on the context. Most introverts I know are very comfortable with friends and family. Most introverts are also able to stand up and speak out when the need calls for it... like during a presentation to the class. In short, Introversion is not shyness. In shyness, we avoid talking because we are afraid or lack confidence. For Introverts, we avoid talking because we are tired... or we just dont feel like it.

4) choose their friends with more prudence. We don't open up to people that easily and so we may have fewer friends than extroverts. However we are likely to cherish our existing relationships very much. Quality over quantity.

5) are not boring, emotionless people. They can be quite intense... just that they are not quite interested in letting you know. That is because some of them don't see the need to do so or because some of them have not formed a solid opinion of their feelings just yet. Give them more time and quit pressing them to answer. Just because Introverts remain silent doesnt mean they don't care. They do. (like a normal human being)

Haha then some people impose certain demands on me that really raise my eyebrows. Things like "Why don't you talk more" or "Can you be less quiet" are absolute no-nos. After all if I don't ask extroverts to tone down their noise level, I should expect the same courtesy from them.

Of course this does not mean anyone can use introversion as an excuse to be anti-social. When you have consented to go to a party, then you have to expect yourself to socialize and make noise. You can't adopt a highly introverted attitude in all situations. You owe your friends this much at least. Besides introverts enjoy the company of their friends. Sure we get tired after a whole night of partying but I think its worth it once in awhile.

If you are an extrovert, try getting to know more introverted people! Once you understand their personality better, you will start to appreciate them as the thoughtful beings they really are.

A... game?

2007-04-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

Well. I got tagged by Wen En. Time for a "non-cheem" post then.

These are the rules: Each player of this game starts out by giving 6 weird things about themselves. People who get tagged need to write in a blog of their own 6 weird things as well as state the rules clearly. In the end, you need to choose 6 people to be tagged and list their names. After you do that, leave them each a comment letting them know you tagged them and to read your blog!

1. I have... a slightly sadistic tendency when it comes to anime/manga. I actually enjoy seeing main characters getting beaten up... and badly.(I still want them to live of course). Maybe thats because im sick of main characters that always win but still this mentality scares me sometimes.

2. When I was in primary 2, my form teacher labelled me as a "playful and noisy" kid. Not quite the Minghao you know right now huh. Well I do recall whacking my classmates with their own rulers and whatnot.

3. I am surprisingly open to "robots" right now. Gundam might seem really childish to another 18 year old but somehow Im still a bit fascinated by such stuff. I watch mecha anime like Zeorymer, Gundam, Vandread, Daiguard(zomg.). And I get attracted to those robot model kits... they look cool to me o_0

4. My classmates would probably know this but my first handphone was run over by a vehicle. It slipped from my pocket onto the road and well... you know what happened next. It was a relatively new handphone too.

5. I went for tuition in primary 5... and guess for what subject? English! Did it help? No... not quite. I remember being quite unmotivated (Kept coming late) and there was once i wrote my essay in 15 minutes on my way to the tuition centre. (It got praised by the teacher too LOL). I was stuck there for about a year though.

6. The last one isn't my proudest memory. When I was in primary 3 or so I actually thought Fann Wong was really pretty. Of course my views have changed since then.

Well I'm not sure who else to tag... Maybe...
Terence
Kai Herng
Adrian
Kay Siong
Jun Zhi

A Treatise on Reason and Passion

2007-04-06T09:23:00.000-07:00

"Reason is the slave of the Passions" - David Hume

When we come across the word "reason", we automatically think about other synonyms like objectivity, logic and rationality. Conversely, the word "passion" brings to mind terms like irrationality and subjectivity. Society predisposes us to value reason over passion. We prefer rational co-workers to one driven by emotional impulses. We say that objectivity is a pre-requisite of good leadership. With all the emphasis on reason one would argue that it is ideal for our emotions to play a secondary role in our thought processes. Indeed it would appear fine and dandy for us to strive to reach the apex of reason but we forget that passion and our emotions invariably form the foundation of most, if not all forms of "rational thought". We are then, as Hume famously remaked, "the slave of the Passions".

In the recent Apollo council elections, an elect was quizzed on whether he deemed himself to be a fully objective individual or not. I do not recall his answer but it must necessarily be a most resounding no. Man does not have the ability to be fuly objective. When faced with two difficult choices and all things being equal, we need to use our emotions to decide which course of action to pursue. Unconvinced? Think of this scenario:
A cart comes hurtling down a track towards 5 people who are somehow stuck on the track, consigning them to certain doom. You stand on a bridge overlooking the track. Horrified, you think of throwing yourself in front of the cart but you know that your mass is not large enough to halt its momentum.
You are then faced with two choices. One solution is to press a switch nearby that diverts the cart to another line - a line on which only one person is stuck. Another solution is to push a larger person standing beside you in front of the cart to stop it. Now what would you do? Logically the choices are equivalent - Its a basic trade off of 5 lives for the cost of only 1. Thus we should see a 50-50 split on both choices. Yet when this question was posed to a group of people, most of them chose to press the switch instead. And so would I. The explanation behind this is simple: Pushing a person down a track is a very primordial form of physical violence that elicits a very strong emotional response in us. We feel troubled because this choice gets us physically involved and most humans do not feel comfortable with causing direct harm to another individual. In contrast, pushing the switch seems more detached and a more palatable decision - we are technically just pushing a button and not killing a person. Indeed, brain imaging scans revealed that the more unpopular option of pushing a man down to the tracks "activated brain areas associated with rapid emotional responses."
Thus we see that any "objective" decision in this case is mired with our emotions. We often decide on the choice that we are most comfortable with and this personal factor prevents us from being fully objective beings. We often do not realize the big role our emotions have to play in decision-making processes because the choices are often quite clear-cut. When the crunch time comes, Man still relies on his basic primitive instincts to chart his course.

Another reason why we cannot divorce reason from passion and hence rationality from irrationality lies in the fact that we perceive events based on what we think we know, or that "je ne sais quoi" that we cannot quite qualify. "What we think we know" is an amalgamation of opinion, prejudice, experiences and our value systems - All highly subjective. To take the case of the story of the "Boy who cried Wolf", on what logical basis did the villagers choose not to heed the 3rd warning? The boy might have lied in 2 previous incidents but this cannot lead us to conclude that he must be lying the 3rd time round. After all, such events should be mutually exclusive. Yet the villagers illogically chose to dismiss the last warning and this decision was obviously emotionally driven. In the same way, we use emotions to facilitate the formation of judgements and the analysis of the costs and benefits of performing an action. This is why society is less accepting of ex-offenders and this is why we place less trust in those who have betrayed us before. It seems expedient to us to make choices based on our impressions and experiences and therein lies the conundrum of rational decision-making. This is such because Man is never fully cognizant of all the facts of an event and therefore uses his emotions to aid in the "rational decision making" process. In a nutshell: Our views of others and the way we choose to interact with them are centred on emotions and never logic. Certainly we can supress such emotions but it takes conscious effort to do so.

Before you come to the conclusion that passion is a hinderance, it must be highlighted that our emotions are what defines us as human beings. We are not human because we have a head, a torso and 4 limbs. Plato once defined Man as a "featherless biped", only to quickly revise his definition when Diogenes of Sinope presented him with a plucked chicken. Neither are we human because of logic and rational thinking processes. Machines are increasingly able to emulate "human logic" and may even be better at it than us. After all humans do not live in a world of algorithms and causality. The ability to perform cognitive functions and logical reasoning is no longer distinct or unique to Man as the distinction between Man and Machine blurs even further. The sine qua non of being a human is the capability to feel the multitude of emotions that arise because we have a soul. Logic can be programmed but emotions cannot. It is our emotions that makes every person unique and ever so precious. Altruism exists in this world not because of rationality but because of irrationality. There is no logical basis to help others at our own expense. It is silly from a utilitarian point of view. But we do so because of our goodwill and because we are able to emphatize.

Perhaps then, it is pointless for us to debate on whether passion is more important than reason or vice versa. We possess both of them and the more important question is how we should balance both conflicting domains in our lives. Our answer to that question is what makes humans, human.

四种人

2007-03-29T07:06:00.000-07:00

我所认识的人往往能分成四大种类。

第一种人称为“同事”。当有要紧事要办时我们才会彼此联络，不然谁也不会主动地去关心对方。这些人谢某认识也罢，不认识也罢。

第二种人称为“酒肉朋友”。谢某能陪这些人一齐吃喝玩乐，无不快活。可是到了最后，我们就像云朵一样，散了又聚，聚了又散。什么“友谊万岁”云云恐怕只不过是一场短暂的梦罢了。

第三种才算是“好友”。谢某往往为这般人欢喜，也为这些人头痛。得到一个这样的朋友值得庆祝，失去了一个这样的朋友可要摧心肝。这些人给予谢某精神上的鼓励和安慰。。。谢某能有你这样的朋友，绝不遗憾。最重要的是要尽量保持联络，并且要学会互相忍耐，彼此包容各方性格上的瑕疵，友情才会经得起时间的考验。

第四种是“知音”。古人云“人生得一知己足矣”。昨天刚好在别人的 blog 里读到：“能有一个知己，二十年的交情，见面不过十回，但仍然心心相通，心心相印。能有一个知己，二十年的过往，分隔两地数年，音信虽全无，但依旧两心相合，两心相知。”

这些话顿时像钳子一般地敲击着我的心头。只可惜想要找到一个红颜知己是一件多么困难的事。有时总觉得这样的思想未免太过天真浪漫。无所谓！反正这都是上天所安排的。

哈哈说了那么多无聊话。谢某越写越觉得自己的华文水准实在差强人意。还是到此停笔，以免大出洋相。

对了。恭贺李兄和吴兄生日快乐。愿神赐平安与你们。

Unos

2007-03-24T07:58:00.000-07:00

Zomg I made a blog huh? Well Ive been wanting to make one since the start of last year but I kept putting it on hold because of laziness. Then I promised some people to blog after the blocks so... I think ill keep my first post a lighthearted one for a start - For those who want to see me angsting(j/k)... Uh not yet =p

Well much apologies for the bland layout. The template making part is not the most user friendly thing on this Earth ya? I think I've returned all my html "skills" to my teachers but oh well.

Just in case you are wondering what "Qoot" means, urbandictionary.com has a pretty interesting definition but there was a period of time i kept misspelling "woot" with this particular word and it stuck with me after awhile. Haha sounds ~~cute~~ qute too.

Well the block tests are finally over yahoo! Frankly it has been quite a marathon these few days... and Im pretty darn tired. Of course I could go on and on and whine about this issue but I think everyone has had enough of such stuff haha =D

So what did you do straight after blocks? I went out with a couple of friends to watch... TMNT -_-. Well it was just barely watchable. But only just. I won't go into detail about the animation and stuff central theme of "Brotherhood overcomes all" has really been repeated ad nauseum. There could have been much more subtler ways to put this across and seeing three overgrown CGI turtles getting lovely dovey with each other is NOT quite the best way to do it. Sure its only a cartoon but who says cartoons must be steeped in such cheesiness? Haha some parts were certainly cheesy enough to give me goosebumps and that is quite a feat I must say.

Then theres the "Stormtrooper effect". (More information can be found on Wikipedia if you like)
Pit a hundred trained ninjas armed with deadly looking swords and cool looking masks versus a rat, three turtles, an anorexic girl and her dysfunctional boyfriend wielding golf clubs as weapons. No prizes for guessing who would win huh? Its a real cliche in so many shows... Main characters, regardless of age, the amount of training or previous occupation who are total novices at fighting can be instantly transformed into Godly warriors after a 5 minute crash course in TaeKwonDo. Or maybe after a few words of wisdom from the sensei. Kinda reminds you of Neo in the Matrix huh?

*Jacks into the Matrix. Jacks out after 5 minutes. Watch it.. I know kung fu.

The stormtrooper effect also states that the amount of hits the bad guys will land on a main character is inversely proportional to the number of bad guys present. This is so true... In fact I would be more worried for the protagonist if he were facing a lone villian wielding a chopstick than if he were facing a fully armed legion of Spartan Hoplites. Such impossibilities have been repeated in so many films.. Jackie Chan, LOTR, Batman etc. And the best part is that we are highly entertained by seeing a bunch of cannon fodder being manhandled by our favourite onscreen hero. =D After all who doesn't like to watch the hero face impossible odds and survive without a strand of hair out of place?

Hmm well I guess im done griping about the movie. For all I've said it really isn't that bad...I give it 5/10 for entertainment value. At least the movie doesn't make you wince in pain halfway through. By all means go watch it... but for Heaven's sake don't do it on the weekend. That $9.50 is best reserved for other upcoming shows. *hint hint spiderman 3. Drools.