For those who aren’t sure about liberal Christianity and how it works, here’s a great article which made the “Most-Emailed” section in the NYT. I’ve just copied the final paragraph, go click on the link to check out the article in full.
My own faith has eroded over the years, though my father’s belief in the supremacy of love still guides me. And so I can’t help but wonder, how can Christians not recognize and honor love that binds two people, any two people, together unto themselves? And if a priest has fulfilled her sacred duties with the distinction that persuades those to whom she would minister to elect her their bishop, and has led an open life of committed love that honors the essence of their God, why should her choice of a partner matter?
My contention with liberal Christianity is as follows is that by denying the veracity and authenticity of Scripture, you undermine the very ground you stand on. If the Bible shouldn’t be trusted at all, then how can I trust your interpretation of it? Its the classic case of a double-edged argument, one which is excellent at cutting down others, though it inevitably hurts its wielder in the process.
Also, the Eric Lax’s take on love seems to be so superficial and anthropocentric. Beyond mentioning the ideals of marital commitment, Lax seems to understand nothing about the love of God which also demands an obedience to His word, emphasizes self-denial for the sake of Christ, and has a powerful, jealous nature when it is betrayed.
Clearly, this isn’t the love portrayed in the Bible – its a false version that’s been warped in the image of man, for the glory and pleasure of man.
I’ve always felt that in music, we catch a glimpse of the divine.
Don’t believe me? Just watch:
Today’s armed forces will have to acquire new equipment, develop new concepts of operation, size the right force structure, as well as train and develop the necessary human capital in order to build capabilities for counter-terrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counter-piracy and other non-traditional operations. - Ng Eng Hen, Second Minister for Defense
A junior of mine is enlisting this week. Curious about his fate, like any other pre-enlistee, he asked me a few days ago to sum up my NS experience so he could prepare for what was coming.
I looked at him and gave him weak smile, not quite sure what to say. It was a difficult question. Grueling? Not really. Soldiering during my father’s time was a far more trying experience. Horrible? Again, not quite – I was blessed enough to get fair superiors and good buddies, factors that made my time in the army so much better. Rather, what I felt was this nagging feeling of emptiness mixed with frustration, like the plot had been lost, and I was an actor caught in the middle of a lousy script. That was NS for me.
“Therefore the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice.” Daniel 9:14
Terrible catastrophes inevitably encourage appeals to God. We who are, at present, unfairly luckier, whether believers or not, might reflect on the almost invariably uncharitable history of theodicy, and on the reality that in this context no invocation of God beyond a desperate appeal for help makes much theological sense. For either God is punitive and interventionist (the Robertson view), or as capricious as nature and so absent as to be effectively nonexistent (the Obama view). Unfortunately, the Bible, which frequently uses God’s power over earth and seas as the sign of his majesty and intervening power, supports the first view; and the history of humanity’s lonely suffering decisively suggests the second.
I was thinking of writing a response to James Wood’s piece, but I figured that for the Christians out there, its an issue really worth mulling over.
So, where was God when the earthquake struck Haiti?
But frankly speaking, don’t stir up any excitement about election. I think we are still concentrating on economic recovery. -SM Goh
Like a model A-star student, Singapore is a nation that has its priorities right. In an interview yesterday, SM Goh signalled our need to think about the economy before the elections, because they are really two separate issues after all, like studies and CCA. Both studies and CCA are important for the student’s holistic growth, but weighed in the balance, studies must always come first. Or, another way of looking at it is to think about the mealtime rule: even though chocolate cake is nice, you always have it after the main course.
Well, this might make some sense at first. But if you scrutinize it further, you’ll see that there’s something horribly flawed with both analogies above, namely this - when we think about the state of Singapore’s polity and economy, are they really to be considered as separate priorities, like studies and CCA, or putting the main course before the dessert? I may be wrong, but this seems to be SM Goh’s message here, who causes economic recovery and the elections to appear as conflicting interests when they are actually one and the same thing.
Now suppose that I feel the current leadership is steering the economy in the wrong direction, say in immigration policy, and want a stronger opposition to influence the current flow of things. Apart from maybe blogging about it, how else could I effectuate this without a vote? The fact is that rather than serving as a fatal distraction to our economic recovery, the elections are part of this process.
Don't get excited about dessert first, focus on finishing the main course
To some extent, I guess there’s some wisdom in putting off the elections for later. Election fever may cause a decline in worker productivity as Singaporeans spend less time and more time attending rallies and you know, photocopying pamphlets or something. Yet, these remarks are ultimately telling of a philosophy that has come to define our country: let’s focus on getting our GDP right first, then we can move on to less important things like the GE. Like chocolate cake.
-A.S.
Hallelujah is a song written by Leonard Cohen in 1984. Because of its hauntingly beautiful melody and lyrics, its becoming one of the most covered songs of all time — you can see the list here, or you can just Youtube “Hallelujah” and follow the numerous links on the sidebar.
Now because there are JUST so many covers, I think its appropriate we decide who did the best one, and give out the aptly-named Leonard Cohen award. Now, I’ve heard numerous versions of the song, and here are my top three (not in any particular order):
#1 Jeff Buckley
#2 Kurt Nilsen, Espen Lind, Askil Holm, Alejandro Fuentes
#3 Justin Timberlake & Matt Moris
#4 K.D. Lang
Which one deserves the award? I initially thought it’d be Jeff Buckley hands-down — this probably reflects popular opinion — but go have a listen to the three renditions below, and you’ll see why I’m struggling to pick out a winner.
On another note, I definitely know which one DOESN’T deserves the award under the any circumstances: did somebody say “really retarded sex scene from Watchmen”?
UPDATE: Based on feedback from a visitor, I’ve added K.D. Lang’s cover of the song to the list. It really is very impressive. I’ve also changed the category from “rendition” to “cover”, out of respect to Cohen himself.
“I am not sure now that Muslim terrorists carried out these attacks. There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything.”
-Dr. Tun Mahatir, speaking at the General Conference for the Support of Al-Quds
It was a difficult thing for me to give away the quote of the day award, because my gosh, this line deserves to be the quote of the DECADE.
At Yale, the long-term drift of students away from majors in the humanities and basic sciences toward more practical ones like computer science and economics has been abetted by administrative indifference. The college career office has little to say to students not interested in law, medicine, or business, and elite universities are not going to do anything to discourage the large percentage of their graduates who take their degrees to Wall Street. In fact, they’re showing them the way. The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities. -William Deresiewicz
Once in a while you come across an article you really like on the internet. By “like”, I don’t just mean worthy enough to appear on your twitter or facebook feed, but something that really makes you stop, think and reflect on your life. Well, here’s one of those rare articles forwarded by a MOE teacher from my church, titled The Disadvantages of an Elite Education.
The article really struck a chord in me, partially because I’m Singaporean, and partially because I’m soon headed for an Ivy League education myself. Now I don’t really need to explain how it may apply to my latter situation, but some of you may be wondering what being Singaporean has to do with it. Reading through the article, I just had this image in my mind of Singapore as one humongous elite university, the country that dreamt of becoming an Ivy League.
Think about it — so much of what Deresiewicz writes about applies to us as a nation. We’re a country that advocates open competition and meritocracy, but also embraces its darker side, a culture of elitism and a growing rift between the privileged and the not-so-privileged. In any country, though some amount of stratification will always remain an inevitable fact, here in Singapore its embraced as a necessary fact of life rather than an issue to address. And look at this line:
One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not.
If there was any great error that we could accuse the MOE of, it would be this. Our education system has churned out students with a solid work ethic and exam competency, but with little sense of identity or self-worth as citizens. Why do you think our top students all try their best to go overseas, treating Singapore like some kind of Alcatraz?
Anyway, I don’t want to spoil the article any further — go read it yourself. It’s rather long, but you won’t be disappointed.
Currently, I’m just imagining what the textbooks will say about Obama’s presidency 50 years from now. Maybe it will read something like:
“While Obama’s appointment initially brimmed with promise, it eventually became a presidency characterised by disappointment and ineffectual leadership,” or, “Obama, touted as the man to steer America into greatness 21st century, just perpetuated her decline.”
Yet, after today’s events in Massachusetts, I’m just wondering how much of it should be attributed to America as a country as a whole and not the president. If the Obama presidency does end in disappointment, it may just be a result of America’s own doing.
I’m not going to rush in to condemn the result, because maybe the proposed healthcare package is that sucky. The people of Massachusetts knew full what they were in for as they voted blue; so I’m sure there are some very strong rationales behind their decision. Yet, I can’t help but be suspicious, because the situation just reeks of partisanship.
To me, the fact that this result more or less spells the end of the Democrats’ health bill really reveals something dysfunctional in America’s political system. Just before you think this is the opinion of some far-removed civil servant (intern) in Singapore, several Americans have already echoed this view. Why should the appointment of a Republican instantly equate to the end of the health bill, just because its been branded by Democrats? Is it really that sucky, and can’t Americans see that further stalling their healthcare problems will only perpetuate many existing woes? And the whole business of filibustering — why should this even be allowed to be used so loosely? It’s been called “unconstitutional” by Thomas Geoghan, and rightly so. Though today’s America still claims to be singing the same virtues of democracy and freedom, it seems far from the vision of its founding fathers espoused in its constitution.
Please don’t get me wrong — I’m not here to defend Obama, because maybe the Democrats really did deserve a wake-up call. But fifty years on, I hope Americans won’t look back at this decision with regret, and worse still, smear the president with her own shortcomings.
I’ve dealt with my share of evangelists, and it always amazes me how wholeheartedly they believe in their religions. Despite my overwhelming cynicism, it is difficult to conceive of them having ill intentions, even if I disagree with what they have to say. Like kids sharing candy, one boy may like liquorice, and may offer it to the other kids because of what he perceives as an extraordinary flavor. The others have no obligation to accept the offer, and may even reject it.
Read the full article here.
