Saturday, December 30, 2006

What is Love?

Love is an abstract concept and as I am writing this I find it difficult to define love because of our varied ideas about what love actually is. The Greeks have three distinct words for love: eros (ἔρως érōs), philia (φιλία philía) and agape (ἀγάπη agápē).

Christians are called to love one another with agape ("the love of God or Christ for humankind") for Christ himself said, "As I have loved you, so you also should love one another." (John 14:34, NAB).

In other words, Jesus calls us to love one another with...
  1. ...a love that is without conditions, because God did not set conditions to save us; Christ died for us while we are still sinners (Romans 5:8) Though many Christians I know dread the idea (myself included ;)), we are called to love our enemies which is a "litmus test" for agapic love. Here's food for thought, can love still be agapic when we are drawn to a person because of a certain quality he or she possess? Would that already be a condition for "love"?

  2. ...an agapic love that is summarized in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NAB:

    "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

  3. ...God because "God is love [agape], and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him." (1 John 4:16, NAB) Hence it is safe to say that if we have agape for someone this love should draw us closer to God and not away from Him.
So what is love? It is not just a feeling ("infatuation"; because what happens when feelings eventually fade away?) nor it is mere attraction ("like"; refer to point #1), rather love is a decision that we are in power to make.

To love with agape is a high-calling because as humans we know that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41, NAB) ...but then again we also know that through Christ who empowers we have the strength to do anything (Philippians 4:13) and that includes the ability to agape.

Dear Lord help me to have a heart and a love like Yours. Amen.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Book Review: Anne Rice's Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt

Anne Rice the author who brought you books such as Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Damned now brings you Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt; the following is an excerpt taken from the book's cover:
"This is the book Anne Rice was born to write, a novel about the childhood of Jesus from Alexandria to Galilee in the turbulent 1st century – the story of the boy who was born to be King of the Jews, the ‘ultimate supernatural hero, the ultimate outsider, and the ultimate immortal’.

Incomparable in its boldness and daring, shockingly timely in its evocation of the Middle Eastern world in another era, hers is a unique and palpable rendering of part of the greatest story ever told. Evoking this crucial time in the life of Christ, based on the Gospels and her intense research into the period, Anne Rice magically recreates these years of drama, confusion, and enlightenment. The story opens in cosmopolitan Alexandria where the family has fled. But, when Herod dies, they take ship for Israel, a land under Roman occupation at a time of insurrection and confusion after the death of a tyrant king.

It is an astonishing child's eye view – part innocent, part knowing – of Jewish life in these unruly years of occupation; and of the boy's growing awareness, first of his extraordinary powers, and then of the whispered mysteries surrounding his birth… We watch him grow, steeped in the laws, rituals and traditions of his people, beginning to discuss and dispute with the Elders, and to ask questions that cannot be answered. And, at the end, we feel the strength of his resolve as the boy comes face to face with the truth about his past and the challenge of his future."

In case you were wondering whether this might be another Da Vinci Code, I can assure you that it is not and to add to the surprise, this book is quite sound in theology and history! I am amazed at how much research Rice has done in order to assemble this book, however I am much more amazed at her 180-degree turn from atheism to her return to Catholicism, from gothic-erotica to Christ-centred fiction; and I salute her for her courage to "write only for the Lord" - to quote Rice: "...the [Vampire] Chronicles are no more! Thank God!"

Rice fully utilizes her poetic license and although I do not find any direct conflict between what Rice has written and canonical Scripture, there are parts in Christ the Lord which has its origins from apocryphal texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or no scriptural or historical origins at all (such as Jesus being a pupil of Philo). Granted that Rice has made much effort to make Christ the Lord as historically/theologically accurate as possible, it is still a work of fiction after all.

Reading this book during the Christmas season intensified my appreciation for Christ's first coming even more - the invulnerable God became a vulnerable child - the thought of that just puts me in a state of awe and wonder. The book also gave me a lasting sense of empathy towards the Holy Innocents; children who were executed by Herod, my heart wrenched as I cried reading chapter 24 - and incidentally today's the Feast of the Holy Innocents. Most importantly, the book gave me a deeper feel and understanding of the environment and context Jesus lived in and I believe this will help me as I re-read the Gospels.

Needless to say I highly recommend the book! You can get the original softcover version for RM10 at the BIG BOOK SHOP WAREHOUSE SALE (Where? Atria Shopping Mall 1st floor, Jalan SS22/23 , Damansara Jaya, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tell: 603 2070 8251. When? Everyday until the 31st of December; thanks shoppingNsales!) The last time I checked there were stacks of it still, so why wait?

Go grab it NOW before it's all gone!

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Christmas Carols for the DSM-IV

by Respectful Insolence (via Doulos, thanks man! really made my day. haha!)
Schizophrenia --- Do You Hear What I Hear?

Multiple Personality Disorder --- We Three Kings Disoriented Are

Dementia --- I Think I'll be Home for Christmas

Narcissistic --- Hark the Herald Angels Sing About Me

Manic --- Deck the Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and Stores and Office and Town and Cars and Busses and Trucks and Trees and.....

Paranoid --- Santa Claus is Coming to Town to Get Me

Borderline Personality Disorder --- Thoughts of Roasting on an Open Fire

Personality Disorder --- You Better Watch Out, I'm Gonna Cry, I'm Gonna Pout, Maybe I'll Tell You Why

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder --- Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Ji ngle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle,Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle
I don't know about you, but I was laughing out loud when I read that! LOL! OK, maybe because I am a psychology major. But still it's DARN funny OK? :D

LOLs!

Quick Reflection: "Gift Exchange" or "Gift Giving"?

A gift is "something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present." [Dictionary.com] Therefore the term "gift exchange" is an oxymoron; how can we call something a gift when we are returning the other person something to substitute what we have given?

Just as God gave us His only Son without expecting us to be able to repay Him for this precious gift of His, we too should give without expecting others to return what we gave. For if we expect others to return what we gave, it would not be called "gift giving" (and definitely not "gift exchange") but just plain "barter".

For us Catholics Christmastide or the Twelve Days of Christmas begins from the Feast of St. Stephen the Martyr; i.e. 26th December up till the Baptism of our Lord; i.e. 7th January. [For more information CLICK HERE and HERE]

So have a pleasant time giving gifts throughout this blessed season! :D

Monday, December 25, 2006

Christmas Day Reflection

It still amazes me that God chose to become one of us; whenever this thought crosses my mind, there is this tingling in my heart and I am touched. Why did He chose to be human and not an angel? I don't know, perhaps that is why the Catholic Church calls it the Mystery of the Incarnation..?

As you unwrap your presents this Christmas morning do keep in mind that the tradition of giving gifts during Christmas is a reminder to the faithful that on this very day God gave Mankind the ultimate gift - Jesus Christ; who through His death on the cross we are given the opportunity to be reconciled back to Him.


How apt that our Savior was named Jesus which literally meant "God saves".

Sunday, December 24, 2006

It's Christmas Eve!







Courtesy of Dayspring.com


Have a blessed Christmas filled with God's gift of hope, peace and joy!


Friday, December 22, 2006

Fa la la la la la la la... floods

As you might have heard from the news there were floods down south here in Johor due to the continuous downpour during the past few days. Thank God the rain's stopped now - except for a few drizzles here and there every now and then.

Guess what? I am experiencing water shortage since yesterday night.

"And isn't it ironic... don't you think"
- Ironic, Alanis Morissette

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Book Review: "And When Did You Last See Your Father?" by Blake Morrison

Ever since the start of the holidays I have been on a reading streak to compensate for my lack of reading consistently for nearly 6 months. Because I read so little my English deteriorated. (*sigh*)

Anyway yesterday I have finally done reading Blake Morrison's And When Did You Last See Your Father? (AWDYLSYF); a memoir about his dying father - make no mistake, this is not a mere eulogy, it's also a character assessment of his father during his living years. He writes with no holds barred; happy, sad, good and bad. He's so honest that there are parts where I read and it made me cringe or made me read it again (just to be sure that I read it correctly).

I've read similar memoirs such as Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes, which I enjoyed very much. Compared to AWDYLSYF I prefer Angela's Ashes because of McCourt's writing style. But Morrison's writing ain't bad either and his book will make you ponder the very question which became the book's title: and when did you last see your father? It did for me, but that's a post for another day. :)

After 07h:06m:13s

... in comes the new and out with the old!

What's new?
  1. The blog's mainly Verdana and Trebuchet (previously Georgia was dominating)
  2. Brand new banner - with the urban kinda look and feel; I think it looks MTV-ish. It was premade, I improvised it from the original and made it Blogger friendly. I've added some stuff to the banner, can you tell what have I added? :)
  3. Far up on the sidebar I've added a Google Search field for my blog and the web. Yayness!
  4. ... and other nitty gritty stuff lah
Tell me what do you think? :D

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Christmas Isn't Christmas

"Christmas isn't Christmas
'Til it happens in your heart.
Somewhere deep inside you
Is where Christmas really starts.

So give your heart to Jesus
You'll discover when you do
That it's Christmas,
Really Christmas for you."

- Christmas Isn't Christmas by Jimmy and Carol Owens
LOL! Somehow I have to make a conscious effort NOT to sing: "So you give your heart to Jesus, You'll discover when you do" as "So give your heart to Jesus, You'll be sorry when you do..."

A case of a stubborn Freudian slip of the mind? :)

Book Review: Gabriele Amorth's "An Exorcist Tells His Story"

Goodbye Stephen King. Hello Gabriele Amorth! Ahem. I mean Father Gabriele Amorth, Chief Exorcist of Rome. Do not be fooled by it's publisher (Ignatius Press), An Exorcist Tells His Story is not your typical Catholic literature, it ain't boring and it ain't for the faint hearted; just say that I am very motivated to pray after reading past the first few pages. So for those of you who are looking for good true-story "horror" literature, this is for you.

For those of you who would like an introduction to exorcism, I highly recommend this book - an easy read even for the average Catholic.

Reading this book: made me appreciate even more the magnitude of Christ's death on the cross to free us from the grasp of satan / helped me to understand that the whole of Creation was made for Christ and whether or not Adam & Eve sinned, God's plan was for the Word (i.e. Christ) to become Man which stirred Lucifer's envy
("Why can't God become an angel instead?") and hence his rebellion against God and his plan to separate Man (i.e. God's very image and likeness) from God through sin / the devil is already launching attacks on us whether or not we are "provoking" him / made me appreciate the use of sacramentals (with faith in God) such as crucifixes, miraculous medals, statues as tools against the devil. Most of all it helped me reaffirmed the fact that the devil cannot tempt/hurt us if God does not allow it (Job 1:12, 2:6) and if He allows, it is always for a greater good and He gives us enough strength (Philippians 4:13) to deal with these hurts or temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13) that come our way.

I am so getting the sequel: An Exorcist: More Stories. :)

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Death of a Sacristan

Our parish sacristan, Uncle Desmond passed away two days ago. It is somehow weird for me to accept the fact that this person whom I saw alive one week ago was dead one week later. The discontinuity of life and death was so... abrupt, that I needed some time to digest the change. I guess funerals serve more purpose for the living than for the dead; it helps those who mourn to move from denial to acceptance - to have the firsthand knowledge that this person whom they know is truly and utterly dead.

Speaking of death, no one dies without God's consent - after all He is the one who gives life and takes it away. However God does not kill, He just chooses not to intervene for a greater good even though it might seem like a bad idea at that point of time. After all, his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9) It's even a bonus if you love God, for all things work for good for those who love God (Romans 8:28).

So love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength (Mark 12:29), and be assured that all things work for good.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

My New Blog: "Questioning Catholic"


In case you were wondering, I am still keeping this blog with the occasional updates. :)

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

"...join your right hands upon this cross, in full realisation that if one of you should abandon the other, you let go of the cross. And if you abandon the cross, you have nothing left, for you have lost Jesus. Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, with your hands on the cross, declare your consent before God and His Church."
- Exchange of Consent

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Snippet

Just something quick before I get back to my assignments (*ugh*)

Usually after every Mass the priest will make some announcements to highlight some stuff in the weekly bulletin. So yesterday at Saturday Sunset, there was an announcement for a talk entitled: "Infertility: Effective Options for Catholic Couples"...

Father misread it and announced: "Infidelity: Effective Options for Catholic Couples".

LOL!

And we wonder why divorces are on the rise. ;)

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Hold On

And now they say that the wise man, well he fears the Lord
And this fear, well, it's the beginning of all wisdom
Then I must be a fool 'cause I sure don't seem to fear You
'Cause the very things that You will me to do well, I just don't seem to get around to
The very
things that You hate are the very things that I always stumble into

So won't You now hold on to me, hold on

Hold on to me, yeah

Please don't let me go no, no, hold on
'Cause I am prone to wonder
Prone to leave this faith I know

Hold on, hold on, hold on to me, hold on


Hold on

Hold on
Hold on

Hold on


'Cause I am prone to leave this faith I know
Prone to leave this God I love


Won't You hold on

Won't You hold on to me


- excerpt from Shawn McDonald's Hold On from Live in Seattle

---


I'll be presenting the verses above in Drama 101 this coming Monday.


Please pray that everyone will do well for that class.


Thanks in advance :)

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

...

My hard disk crashed. I hope my data is still retrievable. Please pray that it is. God help me. People pray for me. Argh. I am lost for words. :(

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Relationships: What's in a name?

As humans we are relational creatures and our identity is rooted in relation to others or certain attributes. Take my name for example :"Celestine"; it brings little meaning by itself because it is just a mere word but when it's in relation to other words/images such as: "male", "Catholic", "psychology student", "Tan", "Chinese" and so on, I have built some sort of identity for myself. Notice that I am in relation to my gender, religious beliefs, major, surname (i.e. clan/family) and race (i.e. my features/culture); without these I have virtually no identity - which goes to show how relational we are and how we are dependent on relationships just for the mere sake of establishing an identity.

Interestingly when Moses asks God for His name to convey to the Israelites (Exodus 3:13), God answered ""I am who I am." and God told Moses to tell his people that "I AM" sent him (Exodus 3:14, NIV). Both "I AM" statements are very significant because it shows how independent God is from all creation; perhaps this is because God Himself is already relational within (i.e. the Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and as God He is never lacking.

Now let's make a detour back to topic of us being in relation to words/images. These words which we use to establish our identity are also in relation to other words/images. For instance, the word: "Catholic" conjures up words/images such as "univeral", "crucifix", "nun", "priest", etc. And these words which are related to the word "Catholic" have other words in relation to it also. So you see words are also dependent on other words/images to establish its meaning - or else words would be meaningless.

In the same way this applies to us. If our identity is rooted in things which are dependent on other things for meaning, we lose our identity as soon as these things loses its own meaning or its meaning becomes ambiguous. A common example would be the issue of race; What makes one Chinese? Almond-shaped eye? Fair-skinned? What about people whose mother is Chinese and father is Indian - what race are they? Should they follow the race of their mother's or their father's? etc.

My whole point is this: what better way to establish one's identity than in relation to God who is, who was and always will be eternal and forever? :)

I am first and foremost a Child of God.

Amen.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Agape

The idea of Christian love is agape (selfless love). It is an unconditional kind of love and those who love in this manner, loves despite the shortcomings of another. God loves us with agape, He loves us despite our sin ("While we are still sinners, Christ died for us.", Romans 5:8). Ironically the reason we see the manifestation of God's agape love for us is because of Man's separation from God (i.e. sin). Perhaps the author of the Exultet realises this and included the following line:

O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Oh, how great is our God!

Friday, October 06, 2006

Exclusive interview with Opus Dei!



For ONE Night Only @ KDU College, Petaling Jaya.

RM5 Cover Charge, includes refreshments.

Interested? Contact me at celestinetan@gmail.com

Friday, September 29, 2006

Fiftynineminutes

"Two friends discover faith, direction adn the truth. An actress whom we all like to hate. A bitter past haunts a bitterer couple. A girl finds beauty in ugliness. A man and a woman make love over dinner. A fellow Malaysian makes the country proud. And a group of roommates bring back the dead - all within fiftynineminutes."
- the oral stage presents fiftynineminutes, original short plays and monologues

In my opinion, a good play is one which is able convey not just its wit but more importantly its intended emotions to the audience. Fiftynineminutes did just that. There were a lot of emotions invested in the play and there were times that the acting got so real that I actually felt a little uncomfortable. Kudos to Reuben Kang, Sharanya M., Kelvin Wong, Doreen Loo and Krystle Wong for their stellar performance. My favorite short play was the satirical "World's Smelliest Durian" - excellent script by Patricia Low, good performance by Johann Lim and good direction by Kelvin Wong. It's so good that it qualifies for a standing ovation! "Showers of Flowers" was my next favorite.

Conclusion? At only RM10, it's the chinaman's dream to watch this play as it is worth every cent. Frankly, I felt that I was underpaying them. Hehe. :) See? It is that good, comes highly recommended from me.

When? September 28th - October 1st 2006 @ 8.30 pm

Where? The Dram Projects, BG06 Happy Mansion Apartments, Jalan 17/13 46400 PJ

Tickets? RM10

Ticket contact? Louisa Low @ 0163757833

>> FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK HERE <<

Friday, September 22, 2006

My interpretation of the Pope's speech

The following is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI's recent controversial speech entitled "Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections":

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(@H". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×<>

---

The following is what I believe Pope Benedict XVI was trying to convey to the audience at the University of Regensburg:

1. [The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".]

The Pope begins by stating clearly that in Islam no one is forced to convert against their will and that he is sure that Manuel II was aware of that verse.


2. [he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".]

The Pope continues to say here that although Manuel II knew what was said in Surah 2, 256 still Manuel II continues to state crudely what was in quotes.


3. [not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".]

The Pope continues to quote Manuel II, who says that for a person to experience true conversion, reason should be used not force – which is exactly what Islam teaches and what Surah 2, 256 writes: “There is no compulsion in religions”; because for one to use force is to be unreasonable and being unreasonable is against God’s nature. Thus the Pope establishes the relationship between Islam and reason; since force is not used in conversion to Islam therefore Islam uses reason thus Islam too is compatible with God's nature.


4. [The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.]

The Pope notes that the reason why Manuel II is able to see the relationship between faith and reason is because of Manuel II's background in Greek philosophy. However the Pope notes that Islam too sees a relationship between faith and reason although Islam is not rooted in Greek philosophy and the Muslim concept of God is a God that is above all things including rationality.


5. [At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?]

Finally the Pope poses the question: Is acting according to reason merely a Greek idea, or is acting according to reason something that comes naturally for those who believe in God such as the Pope sees in Islam?

---

In effect the Pope uses Manuel II's comment to illustrate the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. That is both Christianity and Islam believes in "acting according to reason" thus is according to God's nature and their difference lies only in that Christianity uses Greek philosophy. Thus Muslims and Christians are even able to have dialogues because of this shared commonality in reason.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Bob Parks Speaks

"Madonna is currently touring the world and performing a mock crucifixion just to tick off the religious. Madonna’s been doing this for awhile, yet I don’t remember one Catholic riot occurring."

Read what the pope is really saying...

"By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God."
- George Weigel writes in The Pope Was Right, Los Angeles Times

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Tagged

I've been tagged by Adriene. So here goes!

Five
things in my freezer
Ayam Dinding's Sausages
Wall's Ice cream
Sweet Corn
Plain Ol' Ice
Chicken

Five things in my closet
Various clothing
Vertical Outbound duffel/messenger bag
Creative Muvo 2 MP3 player
Kodak C340 Camera
My very well-worn wallet

Five things in my car
I. don't. own. a. car. But I wouldn't mind filling up this tag if you get me one. ;)

Five things in my wallet
MyKad
Big Bookshop Discount Card
Ringgit
ATM Card
Student ID

There you go - I am pretty boring. If you'd like to do this tag, post a comment so that I know! ;)

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Something to think about

"So while there are very good reasons for criticizing that emperor's knowledge about Islam in his medieval polemical dispute, to demand an apology from Benedict for quoting him in an entirely different context seems rather misplaced."
- writes Paul M. Cobb a historian in Medieval Islam and the Crusades in When do we get to offend in peace?

Ellis, Al-Qaida and the Pope

Albert Ellis developed the ABC theory of personality:
  • A = Activating Event
  • B = Beliefs
  • C = Consequences (Emotional/Behavioral)
Ellis contends that the cause of our feelings is rooted in our beliefs. For Ellis there are two categories of beliefs, rational and irrational. Of course, according to Ellis: rational beliefs leads to healthy consequences and irrational beliefs leads to unhealthy consequences. Allow me to demonstrate the ABC theory of personality using today's examples:
"Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war, proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."
[Source: Jerusalem Post]
  • The Activating Event: "Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war"
  • Consequences: "Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday ... proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."
Thus I assume the irrational Belief of Al-Qaida to be: "It is ABSOLUTELY a MUST for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, if they don't it is always awful."

Ellis would categorize the above Belief as irrational because it leads to the following unhealthy Consequences:
"[Al-Qaida:] ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism ..."
[Source: Jerusalem Post]
A rational Belief that Ellis would suggest would be: "It is strongly preferable for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, but it is not awful if they don't, just very unfortunate and sad."

After which Ellis would go further into D = Disputing and challenge Al-Qaida's thoughts with the following question: "Where does it say that everyone MUST say nice things about Islam?"

---

We see that it is our Beliefs not the Activating Event which caused the Consequences, therefore Ellis concludes that people are primarily responsible for how they feel and the behaviors which result from it.

Therefore, the Pope cannot be held responsible for the feelings of "outrage" / "tensions" and the acts of violence which results.

Besides the Pope Benedict XVI has already made a personal PUBLIC apology. What else should he do?
Don't use the Pope's "remarks" as an excuse - don't be a coward; take responsibility for your actions.

Monday, September 18, 2006

"Subtle scholar, but what an inept politician"

by Waleed Ali

The Pope should mind his words. So should some of his Muslim critics.


LET me get this straight. Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar that the prophet Muhammad brought nothing new to the world except things "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Some Muslims clearly interpret Benedict to be quoting Manuel with approval, and take offence at the suggestion that Islam is inherently violent. The response is to bomb five churches in the West Bank, and attack the door of another in Basra. In India, angry mobs burn effigies of Pope Benedict. In Somalia, Sheikh Abu Bakr Hassan Malin urges Muslims to "hunt down" the Pope and kill him, while an armed Iraqi group threatens to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

There. That'll show them for calling us violent.

Meanwhile, other commentators seem to be vying to be most hysterical. Libya's General Instance of Religious Affairs thinks Benedict's "insult … pushes us back to the era of crusades against Muslims led by Western political and religious leaders". And a member of the ruling party in Turkey has placed Benedict "in the same category as leaders like Hitler and Mussolini", in what must surely be an insult to those who suffered under them.

Closer to home, Muslim Community Reference Group chairman Ameer Ali cautioned Benedict to "behave like (his predecessor) John Paul II, not Urban II (who launched the Crusades)", while Taj al-Din al-Hilali declared startlingly that the Pope "doesn't have the qualities or good grasp of Christian character or knowledge". It's fair to say perspective has deserted us.

Parallels with February's Danish cartoon saga are begging to be drawn. As Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and Syria did with Denmark, Morocco has now withdrawn its ambassador from the Vatican. Egypt and Turkey called for an apology. Indeed, one expert has suggested Morocco's decision may have been a tactic to prevent a wave of street protests similar to those that stunned the world in February. There is an awful sense of history repeating: a provocative gesture triggers an overblown response of surreal imbecility.

But this is not the same as the Danish catastrophe. On that occasion, the cartoons' publication was an act calculated specifically to offend Muslim sensibilities. The reaction was irredeemably contemptible, but the sense of offence was justified.

Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. The apparently offending remarks were almost a footnote to the discussion. The contrast is manifestly stark.

But it seems some elements in the Muslim world are looking avidly for something to offend them. Meanwhile, governments looking to boost their Islamic credentials are only too happy to seize on this, or nurture it, for their own political advantage. At some point, the Muslim world has to gain control of itself. Presently, its most vocal elements are so disastrously reactionary, and therefore so easily manipulable.

Here, the vociferous protests came from people who, quite clearly, have not bothered to read Benedict's speech. Worse, some (like al-Hilali and Ameer Ali) themselves regularly complain of being quoted incorrectly and out of context. Had such critics done their homework, they would have noted Benedict's description of Manuel II's "startling brusqueness". Manuel's point was that violent doctrine could not come from God because missionary violence is contrary to rationality. Benedict's point was a subtle one: that Manuel draws a positive link between religious truth and reason. This was the central theme of the Pope's address. He was silent on Manuel's attitude to Islam because it was beside the point he was making. Clearly, Manuel II was not a fan of the prophet Muhammad. But that does not mean Benedict isn't either.

The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said "the Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion", but the truth is the exact opposite. In theological terms, Benedict chose an example well suited to his narrow argument.

In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words.

I happen to think Manuel had a shoddy grasp of Islamic theology. Indeed, the Islamic tradition would have much to contribute to the theme of Benedict's lecture. While medieval Christendom fought science stridently, the relationship between faith and reason in traditional Islam was highly convivial.

That's why I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel's argument. I'm fairly certain, though, he wouldn't have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him.

Waleed Aly is an Islamic Council of Victoria director.

---

[SOURCE: TheAge.com.au]

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI's Speech

There had been much outrage due to what Pope Benedict XVI said, but what did he really say? CLICK HERE to DOWNLOAD his entire speech (only 37kb), READ the whole lot and then DECIDE whether or not you should be outraged. It is only fair to do so.

[Source of Pope's speech and image via BBC News]

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Psalm 23: Student's Edition

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not flunk
He keepeth me from lying down when I should be studying
He leadeth me beside the water cooler for a study break
He restores my faith in study guides
He leads me to better study habits
For my grades' sake

Yea, though I walk through the valley of borderline grades
I will not have a nervous breakdown
For thou art with me
My prayers and my friends, they comfort me
Thou givest me the answer in moments of blankness
Thou anointest my head with understanding
My test paper runneth over with questions I recognise

Surely passing grades and flying colours shall follow me
All the days of my examinations
And I shall not have to dwell in this exam hall forever.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Brooding

Bummer. I forgot to attached the literature review with my lab report and the deadline was at 5pm, anything later than that will have 1% minus off the GPA per day. Thank God, weekends don't count. So I'll pass it up on Monday then.

I really really want that A-... but a B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. Who am I kidding? No it's not fine.

I can only afford to lose a maximum of 4.5% in my lab report and my finals... :(

Don't worry, I am OK. I just brood a lot, that's all.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Things which made my day

#1 I won best presentation for my research on "The Effects of Gender and Physical Attractiveness on Cooperation" at the Psychology Colloquium today! The prize was RM200 worth of MPH vouchers. :) A BIG THANKS goes out to Irina, Kitty, Doulos, Sharon and Huay Ming, without you guys I might not make it this far.

#2 Our country's JOY has been given international attention. CLICK HERE to know what I mean.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

The Golden Rule...

"And what you hate, do not do to any one."
Tobit 4:15

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."


... have we forgotten about it?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

What is Freedom?

"Freedom is not merely having the ability to do the things we want, but it is also having the will to do the things which we do not want."
- Christina Landau, Kemerdekaan @ "Do U Want to Be A Star?" Komunitas Emmanuel Youth Weekend, 2006

Thursday, August 10, 2006

After The Incident / From the top of my head

Good ole' St. Augustine once said that God's omnipotence is manifested not in His ability to extinguish evil, but in His ability to bring good out of it. Because evil is the absence of good, therefore for God to bring good out of nothing is enough proof of his all-powerfullness.

The Incident that happened last week was the best thing yet that has happened to me! [I am not being sarcastic here ya?] I am serious! I felt so loved with all the encouragement (face-to-face or via sms/emails/comments/phonecalls) that I received from my friends and fellow bloggers/blogders. :)

I believe that was what St. Augustine meant when he said that God is able to bring good even out of evil. If not for the Incident I would not have known that there are so many people who find my existence on this planet significant. ;) Well, at least now I know I got to cater for at least 20 people when I have my funeral. *grin* :D

---

From the top of my head (in no particular order):

Friday, August 04, 2006

I received a death threat...

Apparently, it's because I posted an article on the case of Lina Joy.

CLICK HERE to see the message in full size.

CLICK here for the full body of the message

I have identified the IP to be:

218.111.180.59

... and have reported abuse to Yahoo! Inc.

Suggestions please, on what else do you think I should do?


Sunday, July 30, 2006

All you want to know about Article 11

Article 11 - setting the record straight
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Jul 27, 06 3:59pm
I am the current president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam).Hakam is a member of the coalition which calls itself ‘Article 11'. You would have read about the controversy surrounding the road-show currently underway. The forum in Penang held in May was disrupted by protestors. The forum in Johor Bahru held earlier this month was almost disrupted and was regrettably shortened, again due to protestors. There is a significant amount of material on the web in the Bahasa Malaysia which, while doing many things, chiefly presents a distorted picture of not only what Article 11 is attempting to achieve but also the way things are. These distortions have perhaps unfortunately become the foundation of the prime minister’s caution as reported in the media yesterday. I believe it is essential to set the record straight, not only for the security of those concerned but also for the sake of the nation.

The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives. Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this state of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly objectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could, through recommendations, assist the government of the day in shaping coherent policies pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the government. That is when all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended.

The Article 11 initiative is, however, aimed at creating awareness of the Federal Constitution, the guarantees provided therein and the concept of rule of law against increasing assertions that Malaysia is - in law - an Islamic State. In presenting the Federal Constitution, the initiative has at no point sought to question the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia – it is what the Constitution says, after all. Neither has the initiative sought to challenge or attack the administration of Islamic Law nor the esteemed position of the Malay Rulers.

The initiative has however shown that the provisions in the constitution relating to Islam have a context and, amongst other things, are to be read in the light of the constitutional declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. The context being suggested by Article 11 is not that of the members of Article 11, the organisers or even the speakers at their forums. The context being suggested is one which the courts of this country have recognised. The suggestion that Malaysia is a secular country has recently been wrongly attributed to persons who have unfairly been characterised as trouble makers intent on attacking the administration of Islam. That is wholly incorrect. The statement is one of declared law. In 988, the Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh, declared:

‘... we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law … Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.’

The law stands as that decision of the Supreme Court has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal answered in the affirmative, indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh.

We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the supreme law is the syariah, an Islamic state. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

‘If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution …’

As an illustration, the Pakistani constitution has provisions which declare the syariah law as the supreme law of Pakistan, and any laws inconsistent with the syariah as being void. The Malaysian Constitution does not. Furthermore, our constitutional history clearly reflects that the thinking of the alliance leaders and all key stakeholders in the period leading to the establishment of the Federal Constitution. That while Islam was to be given protected status, as a matter of law and the application of law, Malaysia was to be a secular, Westminster-style democracy. This thinking, having gone to the establishment of the free nation of Malaya and then later, Malaysia, with its gloriously pluralist, multi-racial, multi-religious make up, cannot be dismissed as being mere opinion.

In view of this, it is grossly unreasonable for various parties to have characterised Article 11 as having challenged the status of Islam as the official religion and the status quo. Article 11 has not done so, in fact, it has championed the law including the declaration of Islam as the official religion of the Federation. Conversely, it is its detractors who have, through distortion and by preying on religious and racial sensitivities, sought to challenge the status quo. It is this very process of mixing religion, politics and the rule of law resulting in the ensuing confusion that Article 11 has been cautioning against. Regrettably, this process is gaining ground.

This is not say that I or Article 11 condemn those who aspire to put in place around them a complete system based on syariah principles. That aim should, however, be achieved through constitutional process, that is constitutional change. The Federal Constitution, in as much as it is a living document, cannot be subverted through reinterpretations inconsistent with the objectives underlying the Federal Constitution when it was introduced in 1957. That would be amount to a hijacking of the Federal Constitution and the social contract it put in place.

[Source: MalaysiaKini.com; note: emphasis in bold by bookofjohn.org]

Thursday, July 27, 2006

"All eyes on Lina Joy case"

Sunday, June 25, 2006
This woman wants to get on with her life – get married, have children but something is blocking her plan. She cannot register her marriage at the civil registry. CHELSEA L.Y. NG examines Lina Joy's dilemma.

FORTY-two years ago, a baby girl was born and named Azlina Jailani by her Malay parents. The girl was brought up as a Muslim but at the age of 26 she decided to become a Christian.

In 1999, she managed to change the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but her joy was incomplete as her religion remained stated as Islam.

Now having waited many years for the word “Islam’’ to be deleted from her IC so she could have a legitimate marriage or offspring, the issue may finally be resolved once and for all.

The Federal Court gave leave in April for her to appeal on the question of whether she needed to prove apostasy on her part before the word “Islam’’ could be deleted from her IC.

This question, which the apex court is going to answer after it hears her appeal this week, will no longer be the lone anguish of Lina and her boyfriend.

The verdict will have repercussions not only on these two, otherwise very ordinary people – she is a sales assistant and he a cook – but on other Muslims who are in the same boat.

Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, when granting the leave in April, said that the matter was of public importance.

“Further argument followed by a decision of the Federal Court would be to the public’s advantage,’’ the top judge said.

Ahmad Fairuz together with Federal Court judges Justices Richard Malanjum and S. Augustine Paul also allowed the question of whether the National Registration Department had correctly construed its powers to impose the requirement on Lina when it was not expressly provided for under National Registration Regulations.

Another question that the court would be determining is whether the Syariah Court is the sole authority to decide on the issue of conversion out of Islam.

During the leave proceedings, Lina’s counsel Datuk Dr Cyrus Das argued that the NRD had acted beyond its jurisdiction.

“The unwillingness of the NRD to delete the word ‘Islam’ is unreasonable,” he said.

Das also argued that renunciation of Islam was a matter of constitutional right.

Senior federal counsel Datuk Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, who is representing the NRD and the Government, argued that Lina’s case did not raise any new issue.

She said the NRD had not imposed any new condition but was merely complying with the law of the land, which authorised the Syariah Court to deal with matters involving conversions and apostasy.

“How can the NRD change the status of the applicant to say that she is no longer a Muslim? It cannot do that.

“If it does, then it would be officially pronouncing the applicant an apostate, which even this august court cannot do for obvious reasons,” she said.

Sulaiman Abdullah, counsel for the Federal Territory Religious Council, told the court not to allow apostates to abuse the NRD in order to avoid facing the punishment by the Syariah Court.

“We cannot have a back-door method for people who try to avoid facing the Syariah Court by going to the NRD to change their status from Muslim to non-Muslim,” he said.

The leave was granted more than six months after Lina’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

She had appealed to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card and to claim that she was free to practise the religion of her choice.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision ruled that the NRD director-general was right in not allowing the application on the grounds that the Syariah Court and other Islamic religious authorities did not confirm Lina’s renunciation of Islam.

Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who gave a dissenting judgment, said the NRD’s refusal to make the amendment in Lina’s identity card without an order or certificate from the Syariah Court was null and void and was of no effect.

The case first entered the legal arena on April 23, 2001 when the High Court refused to decide on Lina's application to renounce Islam as her religion on the ground that the issue should be decided by the Syariah Court.

It also dismissed Lina's application for an order to direct the department to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.

[Source: TheStar.com.my]

---

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Upcoming Talk @ Lifeline Ministry

@ The Church of Saint Francis Xavier, Petaling Jaya.

If you are coming please drop me an email and I'll be there to greet you personally ;)

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Father Simon can cook!

Yes - that's our Father Simon (parish priest) wokking for the crowd at the SFX Family Day. :) I notice that people (me included) often find it amusing to see priests/monks/religious brother and sisters doing the most ordinary and mundane of things such as cooking a meal, shopping for clothes, eating at a restaurant, watching a movie, working out, etc.

Don't you find it amusing too? ;)