Christianity normally depicts Satan as a fallen angel, the fount of all evil, ruler of Hell and arch-enemy of God. Yet we are also told that he has absolutely no true power at all, except being extremely adept at lying and deceiving. This seems rather peculiar from a logical sense, for surely if God wanted to he could squash Satan like a man crushes a cockroach (in fact even more easily, cockroaches are surprisingly resilient). Surely then there is no war between Heaven and Hell, for how can a cockroach wage war on a man?
Let us recall the Book of Job. Job (no relation to Steve Jobs) was a righteous fellow who respected God greatly, whom the Almighty mentioned as a shining example of moral perfection to Satan when the later came visiting in Heaven. Satan countered by saying that Job was only so pious due to the fact that God have given him a pretty cushy life and if he faced some tribulations this piety might melt away quickly. Upon God's permission Satan handed out some tough times to Job, such as his children dying, his property being annihilated and himself contracting horrible illnesses. Job was still pious at the start but in the end his resolve cracked and he began to curse God, whereupon God talked to him and he realized that he should still have trusted in God, after which God gave him back a nice life.
Long version is here: http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm
Now let us examine the text. At the beginning:
1:6 Now there was a day
when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan
came also among them. 1:7 And
the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the
LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up
and down in it. 1:8 And the
LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there
is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that
feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and
said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about
him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou
hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the
land. 1:11 But put forth thine
hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto
Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself
put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the
LORD.
So basically Satan, along with the other angels, went to say hi to God. God asked Satan where he had been, and whether he had seen Mr. Job, who was an exemplary man. Satan said yea sure but you have been protecting him all this time, if you let me do stuff to him I bet he will think differently, so God said ok you can do evil things to his property but not his person.
We can see that (a) Satan seems to have decent relations with God, and (b) he can't do anything to Job's person or property without God's permission. Does this seem the behavior of two adversaries? Of course not. It seems more as if Satan is working for God.
And in truth, in the Jewish tradition, Ha-satan, or "accuser" is not the devil, but instead the prosecuting lawyer of God. He is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. Later in Abrahamic religions he was changed to be Satan, the prince of darkness. Having said that, how can there be a prince of evil who is essentially powerless, as the Bible admits?
So I think the Jewish explanation makes more sense to me.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
My bed and I
When I was in college I had to share a room with my best friend. Now he was everything one could ask for in a roommate (and no we are not gay), but one thing just made me sad about having to share a room - I had to sleep on a single bed.
The sorrow of sleeping on a single bed is that when I sleep, I have to subconsciously confine my body and limbs to its rather limited borders. For someone with a free spirit like myself, this is akin to confining a nightingale in a golden cage, or a great conqueror to a land the size of Singapore. In truth, I think of my bed as a autonomous nation. This is why I maintain a large number of pillows and use them to build a wall around me, something like the great wall of China.
What scares me is in the future when I get married I shall have to share the bed with somebody of unknown size. To ward against the horror of my territory shrinking, what must be done is to acquire two king-sized beds and stack them together side by side. This would be the equivalent of the Mongol empire in terms of mattresses, and only such a region would be worthy of my rest.
By the way I shall also include a lovely song in hope of changing local musical tastes to be better (i.e. more like my own).
The sorrow of sleeping on a single bed is that when I sleep, I have to subconsciously confine my body and limbs to its rather limited borders. For someone with a free spirit like myself, this is akin to confining a nightingale in a golden cage, or a great conqueror to a land the size of Singapore. In truth, I think of my bed as a autonomous nation. This is why I maintain a large number of pillows and use them to build a wall around me, something like the great wall of China.
What scares me is in the future when I get married I shall have to share the bed with somebody of unknown size. To ward against the horror of my territory shrinking, what must be done is to acquire two king-sized beds and stack them together side by side. This would be the equivalent of the Mongol empire in terms of mattresses, and only such a region would be worthy of my rest.
By the way I shall also include a lovely song in hope of changing local musical tastes to be better (i.e. more like my own).
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Makeup
One of the things I think guys are most hypocritical on is makeup, on girls of course. When asked whether they prefer a girl with makeup or not, most guys I've seen will go "no no no I prefer natural", but when actually put to the test, I see girls who use makeup acquire many more pursuers than those who go without. Surely if guys were telling the truth this would go the other way around.
So why do so many guys insist on saying they prefer girls who go natural? (by this I mean no makeup, not no clothes) I think there are a few reasons for this:
1. There are girls who look strikingly beautiful even without makeup. They are DEFINITELY in the minority and there is just not enough supply to go around for every guy to get one, but still I suppose some guys do aim for it. It's like if you ask me what car I like I would tell you a Ferrari, but I don't think the chances are high that I will get my hands on one, at least in the near future.
2. The guys are being fake and emphasizing that they prize character over superficial beauty. Okay, girls do this too so there is nothing much to say for this one.
3. Makeup is somehow associated in their minds with vice and debauchery, Jezebel and the fleshpots of Egypt, and loose women. Well... this attitude is probably more common among younger fellows, especially those still in school. Having said that I think it's pretty silly, for a sensible amount of attention to one's appearance hardly equates to sin.
4. When we say "makeup on girls" some guys get the wrong idea. Personally I think this is the most important reason. I knew a few girls who put on makeup so thick that bullets would have trouble penetrating it. To be sure, when I see them I have to control an urge to pat their back hard just to see how large a powder cloud I can generate. Perhaps when we mention makeup, the above images are evoked in one's mind instead of a suitable application of eyeliner and foundation. In fact, I suspect the girls who use the aforementioned two elements in light amounts are classified under the "natural" girls by many guys.
So yes I think girls should use makeup. Just don't become a tempura.
So why do so many guys insist on saying they prefer girls who go natural? (by this I mean no makeup, not no clothes) I think there are a few reasons for this:
1. There are girls who look strikingly beautiful even without makeup. They are DEFINITELY in the minority and there is just not enough supply to go around for every guy to get one, but still I suppose some guys do aim for it. It's like if you ask me what car I like I would tell you a Ferrari, but I don't think the chances are high that I will get my hands on one, at least in the near future.
2. The guys are being fake and emphasizing that they prize character over superficial beauty. Okay, girls do this too so there is nothing much to say for this one.
3. Makeup is somehow associated in their minds with vice and debauchery, Jezebel and the fleshpots of Egypt, and loose women. Well... this attitude is probably more common among younger fellows, especially those still in school. Having said that I think it's pretty silly, for a sensible amount of attention to one's appearance hardly equates to sin.
4. When we say "makeup on girls" some guys get the wrong idea. Personally I think this is the most important reason. I knew a few girls who put on makeup so thick that bullets would have trouble penetrating it. To be sure, when I see them I have to control an urge to pat their back hard just to see how large a powder cloud I can generate. Perhaps when we mention makeup, the above images are evoked in one's mind instead of a suitable application of eyeliner and foundation. In fact, I suspect the girls who use the aforementioned two elements in light amounts are classified under the "natural" girls by many guys.
So yes I think girls should use makeup. Just don't become a tempura.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
On Education
The Asian educational system has oft been criticized for placing too much emphasis on rote memorization and tight adherence to procedure. It is true that this system stifles original thought, which is one of the reasons why fewer Nobel prizes are won by Asians in Asia, despite our outstanding results on tests.
However this educational system is not all bad: it served an important purpose in the past, and to some extent today.
Consider the situation most Asian countries faced in the mid twentieth century. The West was much more advanced in science and technology, so our priority was to absorb this science and tech in order to build our countries on double quick time, so that the economy could grow quickly and everyone would enjoy a better life. In other words, we needed to do in thirty years what the West took over a hundred years to do.
Since the technology already existed, there was no pressing need for us to develop original thinkers, the more urgent thing was to train up a cadre of people who could grasp existing technology and use it to develop the country. As such, rote training is the most effective method for mass producing such people. This is also the reason why Asians have historically flocked to the more practical courses such as engineering and accountancy, while shying away from the arts, because we needed to modernize ASAP.
Only now do we have the breathing space to take a step back and consider the development of creativity and original thinking.
However this educational system is not all bad: it served an important purpose in the past, and to some extent today.
Consider the situation most Asian countries faced in the mid twentieth century. The West was much more advanced in science and technology, so our priority was to absorb this science and tech in order to build our countries on double quick time, so that the economy could grow quickly and everyone would enjoy a better life. In other words, we needed to do in thirty years what the West took over a hundred years to do.
Since the technology already existed, there was no pressing need for us to develop original thinkers, the more urgent thing was to train up a cadre of people who could grasp existing technology and use it to develop the country. As such, rote training is the most effective method for mass producing such people. This is also the reason why Asians have historically flocked to the more practical courses such as engineering and accountancy, while shying away from the arts, because we needed to modernize ASAP.
Only now do we have the breathing space to take a step back and consider the development of creativity and original thinking.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
On Absinthe
Absinthe is, as legend goes, the drink that inspired Van Gogh to cut off his left ear and present it to a prostitute he liked. I had the chance to partake of it recently, though fortunately both my ears are still intact.
The drink itself comes in a shot, accompanied by a glass of ice and a sugar cube. This sugar cube is placed in a teaspoon balanced across the glass. Now, the purpose of this setup is to allow mixing of the three elements of ice, sugar and absinthe via fire.
My waiter tried to do it by setting the shot itself on fire. To his great dismay, once the shot was on fire, it was too hot for him to grasp and pour in. After a few attempts of this, he gave up and called another more experienced fellow, to avoid getting his fingers even more scalded.
As the second guy came along, he solved the problem admirably, with a deft flourish of the cup he poured a little of it onto the sugar cube, then set the cube itself on fire. With that touch of flame added in, the remainder of the drink could be poured over the half-melted cube to combine everything into one glorious concotion.
Now you too know how to enjoy this infamous drink.
The drink itself comes in a shot, accompanied by a glass of ice and a sugar cube. This sugar cube is placed in a teaspoon balanced across the glass. Now, the purpose of this setup is to allow mixing of the three elements of ice, sugar and absinthe via fire.
My waiter tried to do it by setting the shot itself on fire. To his great dismay, once the shot was on fire, it was too hot for him to grasp and pour in. After a few attempts of this, he gave up and called another more experienced fellow, to avoid getting his fingers even more scalded.
As the second guy came along, he solved the problem admirably, with a deft flourish of the cup he poured a little of it onto the sugar cube, then set the cube itself on fire. With that touch of flame added in, the remainder of the drink could be poured over the half-melted cube to combine everything into one glorious concotion.
Now you too know how to enjoy this infamous drink.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Racial quotas in tertiary education
Many in Malaysia criticize the policy of reserving a certain percentage of university seats for each race, maintaining that admission should be purely on academic merit. While I feel the pain of students who are denied opportunities in favor of another with lesser results, I do think that there are also arguments in favor of the quota system as well.
In the United States, the quota system is alive and well too, especially in the top universities such as Harvard and Yale. It is already common knowledge that Asian students need better grades to get into a top university compared to African-American and Latino students, as Asians are already overrepresented in the Ivies while the other two races are underrepresented, admissions officers try to "re-balance" the student percentages. The proclaimed reason for doing so is to build a more diverse class.
Truth be told, the very reason that American universities base their admissions on a diverse, holistic set of criteria that includes much more than academic achievement was due to racial factors - in the 19th century Jews were attending the top universities in numbers far in excess to their proportion of the population, hence the administration had to do some "re-balancing".
This may strike many of us as unfair, and in a way it is, for shouldn't a student who works hard to score 90 marks be rewarded over another who scores 80, no matter the color of their skin?
If the sole purpose of the university system was to provide education and advance human knowledge, this would indeed be greatly unfair. Yet the top universities serve another purpose, which is to provide a pathway to participate in the top political and business circles. A huge number of America's elite come from the Ivies, thus to allow all ethnic groups to have a stake in the top, an effort to ensure diversity is necessary. The same predominance of alumni of prestigious universities can be seen in the ruling circles of many countries, many Chinese leaders come from Tsinghua university, while in Japan the University of Tokyo is the road to Parliament.
Does this apply in our country now? Due to the relative youth of our universities, many top leaders have been educated overseas, however in time I believe the influence of our top university alumni will be increasingly felt in political circles. Thus in principle, there is something to say for the quota system, despite its unfairness to individual students.
Of course, there are more deep-seated problems with politics as it is run in our nation, but those are separate from the theory I have expounded on above.
In the United States, the quota system is alive and well too, especially in the top universities such as Harvard and Yale. It is already common knowledge that Asian students need better grades to get into a top university compared to African-American and Latino students, as Asians are already overrepresented in the Ivies while the other two races are underrepresented, admissions officers try to "re-balance" the student percentages. The proclaimed reason for doing so is to build a more diverse class.
Truth be told, the very reason that American universities base their admissions on a diverse, holistic set of criteria that includes much more than academic achievement was due to racial factors - in the 19th century Jews were attending the top universities in numbers far in excess to their proportion of the population, hence the administration had to do some "re-balancing".
This may strike many of us as unfair, and in a way it is, for shouldn't a student who works hard to score 90 marks be rewarded over another who scores 80, no matter the color of their skin?
If the sole purpose of the university system was to provide education and advance human knowledge, this would indeed be greatly unfair. Yet the top universities serve another purpose, which is to provide a pathway to participate in the top political and business circles. A huge number of America's elite come from the Ivies, thus to allow all ethnic groups to have a stake in the top, an effort to ensure diversity is necessary. The same predominance of alumni of prestigious universities can be seen in the ruling circles of many countries, many Chinese leaders come from Tsinghua university, while in Japan the University of Tokyo is the road to Parliament.
Does this apply in our country now? Due to the relative youth of our universities, many top leaders have been educated overseas, however in time I believe the influence of our top university alumni will be increasingly felt in political circles. Thus in principle, there is something to say for the quota system, despite its unfairness to individual students.
Of course, there are more deep-seated problems with politics as it is run in our nation, but those are separate from the theory I have expounded on above.
Friday, March 29, 2013
On Batman (and how he could do better)
Batman is basically a guy with no superpowers, but is very smart and well trained in fighting, and has the money to buy a ton of equipment. He uses his tough body (damn that sounds gay) to go around subduing outlandish villains and petty thugs with non-lethal force.
I will just post this pic to illustrate the trouble Christian Bale went through to get a body that can whack some bad guys.
The question is, if he has such intellect and money, why would he use hand to hand combat as the FIRST instead of the LAST resort? Someone said that if Batman was really smart, he'd be Ironman, and I find that quite true. Even without ascending to such heights of technological prowess, a simple tranquilizer gun would help him aplenty in taking down villains without killing them. Tasers would do fine too.
Instead he has to go and get himself hurt here and there. He isn't even that invincible, I remember a few common bad guys gave him some difficulty, as did the Joker's dogs. Surely tranquilizer darts, or a gun that fires nets would have helped him tremendously in both those scenarios.
Maybe the reason he uses his fists is that it makes him look cool. Since he is a billionaire, and they may not have much better things to do, it makes sense now. After all what do those rich people buy yachts for? To make them look glamorous, am I right?
The only answer that makes sense is that Batman spent a lot of money training to be a ninja, so now he doesn't want this training to go to waste, and wants to look impossibly cool in the bargain. So how does he beat up so many people without tiring out?
Easy. He pays them to pretend to be bad people. That's why villains in Batman all dress and behave in very eccentric ways - it's so that Batman looks even more awesome in comparison. The solution to everything is clear now.
I will just post this pic to illustrate the trouble Christian Bale went through to get a body that can whack some bad guys.
The question is, if he has such intellect and money, why would he use hand to hand combat as the FIRST instead of the LAST resort? Someone said that if Batman was really smart, he'd be Ironman, and I find that quite true. Even without ascending to such heights of technological prowess, a simple tranquilizer gun would help him aplenty in taking down villains without killing them. Tasers would do fine too.
Instead he has to go and get himself hurt here and there. He isn't even that invincible, I remember a few common bad guys gave him some difficulty, as did the Joker's dogs. Surely tranquilizer darts, or a gun that fires nets would have helped him tremendously in both those scenarios.
Maybe the reason he uses his fists is that it makes him look cool. Since he is a billionaire, and they may not have much better things to do, it makes sense now. After all what do those rich people buy yachts for? To make them look glamorous, am I right?
The only answer that makes sense is that Batman spent a lot of money training to be a ninja, so now he doesn't want this training to go to waste, and wants to look impossibly cool in the bargain. So how does he beat up so many people without tiring out?
Easy. He pays them to pretend to be bad people. That's why villains in Batman all dress and behave in very eccentric ways - it's so that Batman looks even more awesome in comparison. The solution to everything is clear now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)