I’ve decided to put up the essays that I’ve written in my 3 and a half years as an undergraduate. I’ve written close to 50 papers I think, so I might as well put them up. If I remember the grade, I’ll put it up as well. I’ve lost some of my essays because I deleted them and lost the hard copies, so oh well. Here’s the next one I wrote.

Grade obtained: B

Thomas Nagel says that the objective view a person holds is schizophrenic – it is split into two disparate elements: spectator and participant. He claims that “it devotes itself to the interests and the ambitions, including the competitive ambitions, of one person while at the same time recognizing that he is no more important than anyone else and that the human form of life is not the embodiment of all value.”[1] I agree with Nagel, but I do not think that our objective view of others has a split personality as well. I would argue instead that our objective view of others can only be a spectator with regards to other people, and that being a participant results in a shift to a subjective view. When it comes to viewing other people and their lives, we cannot participate, or “devote ourselves to the interests and [their] ambitions”[2] unless we first understand them. And in order to obtain this understanding, we need to empathize with them, an action which in itself entails a subjective viewpoint.

            Of course, one can argue that we can just take the objective view that he has of himself. In that case, it would not be a subjective view because it was originally his objective view. But is this borrowed view truly able to be a participant? I do not think so. There won’t be the same feeling of psychological empathy, because one can’t truly understand another’s interests and ambitions just by looking at them. Consider this scenario: the person you view has the ambition to be a doctor because it’s meaningful to him. Can you understand how it’s meaningful to him just by looking at it from his objective point of view? The answer is no. All we can grasp is that it is meaningful in some way to him, we do not understand why. We cannot grasp his drive UNLESS we can identify with why he finds meaning in his ambition, a task which will not be accomplished unless our borrowed objectivity becomes authentic subjectivity.

            To further develop this argument, let us consider Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner”. Through an analysis of a scene in this film, I will attempt to show that when one becomes a participant, one shifts to a subjective view. The movie is set in 2019 where Replicants, machines identical to humans in every way but programmed without emotions, are produced and used as slaves by mankind. Because of the fear that the Replicants might develop emotions of their own over time (thus making it much more difficult differentiate a Replicant from a real human) they are created with a limited lifespan of four years. Replicants are outlawed on Earth, and special police officers code-named Blade Runners have the duty of destroying any Replicants detected on Earth. Deckard is an ex-Blade Runner who is given the task of tracking down and destroying a band of Replicants that are loose in Los Angeles.

It is Deckard’s perception of the Replicants that I would like to analyze. During the course of the movie, he moves from treating them as objects to be hunted down and destroyed to viewing them as being equally human to himself. He initially holds an objective spectator view at first, but when he becomes a participant in their “lives”, his view becomes subjective. This theme is raised in many scenes, but the scene I will analyze in depth is from 1:37:55 to 1:40:36. Roy is the leader of the band of Replicants loose on Earth, and this scene is his death scene.

In the scene right before this, Deckard is fleeing from Roy, having has lost his gun. Roy stalks Deckard through the entire building and chases him all the way to the rooftop. Desperate to escape, Deckard finally makes a death-defying leap from one building to another, but barely manages to hang on to a beam. As he struggles to maintain his weakening hold, Roy stands over him and remarks: “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.” (1:37:38 – 1:37:46) Right before he falls, he is rescued by Roy (1:37:55 – 1:38:40) and this is when his perception begins to change.

Deckard, through the constant threat of death, has been given a taste of what existence must have been for the Replicants. Roy’s remark about living in fear helps Deckard realize that Replicants live in constant fear of death and feel like slaves to this fear. Through this ordeal, Deckard has become a participant in the same fear that Roy has always felt, and realizes that his experience of living in the fear of death is similar to that experienced by the Replicants. Because of this realization, he can now empathize with Roy. His initial detached view of Roy as “Dangerous enemy: Must flee” turns to something more subjective.

As Roy squats down before the bewildered and fearful Deckard, he notes sadly that all his memories will be lost when he dies: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in the rain.”(1:38:40 – 1:39:23) He then gives his last words: “Time to die” (1:39:27 – 1:39:30).

Deckard is moved deeply by Roy’s last words. As he sits there watching Roy die, he reflects on his new understanding that Roy was concerned with the same issues that humans are concerned about in his epitaph: “All he’d wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?” (1:40:13 – 1:40:24). Deckard then laments his inability to help Roy: “All I could do was sit there and watch him die.” (1:40:24 – 1:40:27). We can thus see that Deckard no longer thinks of Roy as just a machine in human form, but as a real human. He is now a participant in Roy’s life (or in this case, death) and he is no longer able to hold a dispassionate, disengaged, OBJECTIVE view of Roy, but rather possesses a view of Roy that falls into the subjective viewpoint.

As observers watching this death scene, we too initially just view Roy as a machine. Director Scott attempts to change our perception of Roy as an object into a subject by using many techniques to get us to participate in Roy’s death. When Roy assumes a wistful, faraway look as he speaks about his memories, we relate to that, for we do the same things when we recollect sweet and precious memories. Just before he dies, he smiles a sad and resigned smile. This is common in people who know they are about to die and have resigned themselves to it. The music in the background is soft, gentle and sad, and the xylophone is used to evoke in us a sense of wonder, magic and of a sacred moment. The scene directly following Roy’s death plays on our religious sensibilities, for the dove flying off into the sky is symbolic of his “spirit” ascending to heaven. Finally, Deckard’s epitaph is meant to guide us into thinking that Roy was just as human as we are and into empathising with him – he is faced by the same problems we ourselves face.

All this shows that once we become a participant, the objective view of others is lost and the subjective viewpoint takes over. Before Roy’s death we vilified him – he is the hero’s arch-nemesis; a machine masquerading as a human. Yet after we have begun to identify with him, we no longer see him as just another Replicant, but as a human trying to deal with human problems. We see him subjectively. Therefore, the objective view of others is not split into spectator and participant, and it turns to subjectivity when we become participants.

References:

Nagel, Thomas. (1989). The View From Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott, Ridley (Director). (1982). Blade Runner. Columbia Tristar Fims.

 

---

[1] Nagel, Thomas. (1989). The View From Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 221

[2] Ibid, Page 221

This is my first ever essay written as a student in National University of Singapore. It was written in Fall 2004 for a writing class. I got a B+ for this essay.

Do you have a mind? The simple common-sense answer would of course be yes. But wait! That’s not what science tells you. No, you actually DON’T have a mind! It’s just your brain playing tricks on you. What you think is your mind is merely the result of certain neurons in the brain firing little charges of electricity. You insist you do have a mind? Get real, science, neuroscience in particular says otherwise. The mind IS the brain. Believe science or you’re a Witch-hunter from the Salem Witch Trials.

Does this argument make any sense? Well, to some it does. Paul Churchland is unapologetically supportive of this view of the mind-brain problem. In his article “Eliminative Materialism” he argues that there will not be any other way to explain exactly what the mind is, and that eventually, materialism will eliminate all remnants of the view that the mind is not 100% the brain. I don’t accept this argument however, and I think that neuroscience will not succeed at killing off the mind. My thesis is that we should bury eliminative materialism not only because it does not have a good chance at explaining the mind, but also because it threatens society in dire ways.

What are the arguments for eliminative materialism? Firstly, Churchland claims that there will not be any successful theory that accommodates the existence of the mind which is apart from the brain:

“…the one-to-one match-ups will not be found, and our common-sense psychological framework is a false and radically misleading conception of the causes of human behaviour and the nature of cognitive activity.”

Here Churchland argues that there will never be any discoveries that serve to reconcile our common-sense understanding of the mind, or folk psychology, and neuroscience. However, he contradicts himself later when he says “there are vastly many more ways of being an explanatorily successful neuroscience while not mirroring the structure of folk psychology.” First he says that there will never be any discoveries, next he admits that the possibility of these match-ups being found does exist, however slim they may be.

Churchland goes on to claim that this understanding of our minds we possess is a very misguided and false way of looking at the mind-brain mystery, and that folk psychology fails rather miserably to explain many phenomena associated with the mind that is very familiar to us:

“So much of what is central and familiar to us remains a complete mystery from within folk psychology. We do not know what sleep is, or why we have to have it…We do not understand how learning transforms each of us from a gaping infant to a cunning adult, or how differences in intelligence are grounded. We have not the slightest idea how memory works, or how we manage to retrieve relevant bits of information instantly from the awesome mass we have stored. We do not know what mental illness is, nor how to cure it.”

Yes, it is true that folk psychology cannot explain sleep, memory or learning. Yet for Churchland to claim that neuroscience is able to explain these phenomena is misleading, because neuroscience cannot explain them either. While neuroscience enables us to learn about the brain, it does not explain the above-mentioned phenomena of the mind. Knowing about something and explaining something are not the same. In his article “The Mysterious Flame”, Colin McGinn uses Thomas Nagel’s animal phenomenology to argue this point. This argument states that although we spend years and years studying everything there is to know about the brain of a bat, we would have no inkling of what it would actually be like to be a bat. We would have no idea at all what it feels like to flit about in the night, navigating via echo-sounding. Thus, McGinn concludes:

“We could know all about the bat’s brain as a material system, but that would not give us knowledge of what it is like to be a bat…it would not give us complete insight into the bat’s consciousness. Thus, knowledge of the brain does not amount to knowledge of the mind”. When it comes to phenomena such as experiencing pain and emotions, folk psychology admittedly doesn’t do a good job. So how about neuroscience? The answer is “neither does neuroscience”. All neuroscience has been able to do so far is to explain which parts of the brain are active when we experience things such as pain and when we feel emotions such as anger and desire. It does not explain these phenomena at all. Explaining what happens and what it is are entirely different things. In fact, McGinn addresses very issue when he argues:

“What makes the concept pain different from the concept C-fiber firing is precisely that the two concepts express distinct properties, so we cannot say that these properties are identical. The appearance of pain cannot be reduced to C-fiber firing…but appearances are what the mind consists of. So the mind cannot be reduced to the brain.”

Hence, on an intellectual level, the arguments for eliminative materialism are not convincing. More than that, I think that we should stop eliminative materialism in its tracks because it holds dire consequences for the world. What do I mean by this? Let us suppose that eventually, the truth is discovered and it is revealed that there is no mind, only the brain and electro-chemical changes. What are the implications of this discovery? I believe that the implications are dire and harmful to human well-being. In reducing the mind to the brain, one would also reduce things such as faith, emotions and even talent to mere firing of neutrons. It would beggar society greatly!

Let us now imagine that we are in a world where the mind has been disproved, as Churchland would have it. That means that religion is merely a construct of our brains; certain neurons firing certain frequencies created Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. We hence have no soul. We are nothing but physical matter, and once the body dies, it’s over. There is no heaven to look forward to, because heaven is just a construct of our brains. God, gods, and goddesses do not exist. So now let me pose a question: where would we humans go for comfort? Imagine the aftermath of September 11 without religion to comfort the grief-stricken and distraught people of America. Think of the disillusionment people will experience when they realize that life is only about fulfilling one’s wants; no higher calling exists. The fact is that we humans need something to believe in. Why take it away for the sake of a cold hard truth that leaves us desolate? At what cost is the truth obtained?

I suppose that even the notion of comfort would be called into doubt as well, because like everything else, comfort is merely the brain’s response to experiences by firing neurons and causing chemical changes. But wait, if that were the case, it would mean that eventually, we would learn how to duplicate the exact processes that take place when we are comforted. It doesn’t stop here either. All our emotions could be duplicated as well. How amazing! I predict that the next hugely successful therapy would be “Comfort Clinics”. Feeling sad and heartbroken? No worries, head over to your nearest Comfort Clinic and we’ll fix you up in no time! A few electrodes here and there, an injection or so, and voila! You’re happy again.

Even our ways of learning would not be spared. Talent would become an obsolete word, because no one needs it anymore. If one were lousy at something, all it takes is a few chemicals to remedy it. Take the arts for example. All we need to do is to find out which neurons make an artist or a musician and stimulate them. Anyone could be a Picasso! I can envision a new version of the Do-It-Yourself Kit: the “Make-Yourself-Into-Something-You’ve-Always-Wanted-To-Be Kit”! Be an artist instantly without the hassle of going for hours of art lessons every week! In the end, the uniqueness of each work of art would be compromised. Since everyone can paint like Van Gogh, there won’t be anything special about his art anymore. What would be the point of music and art then?

In conclusion, I don’t believe that it is really worth it to beggar ourselves socially and culturally for the sake of a truth leaves us cold and impoverished. Let us now grab our shovels and bury eliminative materialism so that we can remain rich without the dreadful and unnecessary truth.

References:

Churchland, Paul. (1984). “Eliminative Materialism.” In Matter and Consciousness.
Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 43-49.
McGinn, Colin. (1991). “Consciousness – Still Unexplained After All These Years.”
In The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World. Oxford:
Blackwell Books. pp. 1-29.

Greed:	Low
Gluttony:	Low
Wrath:	Low
Sloth:	Low
Envy:	Very Low
Lust:	Very Low
Pride:	Low

Discover Your Sins – Click Here

My blog is quite dead as I can’t really be bothered to write. However, this is something worth the effort.

Copied from Scott’s Blog:

Let’s see what happens in the end. 

 —–

Are you a Malaysian blogger, or a blogger who takes interest in Malaysian matters? Do you disapprove of self-important Datuks using their rank, influence, power and wealth to bully and insult others into meekly bowing to their inane perception of relaity?

Then I ask you to re-post the following testimony, and call on all Malaysian or Malaysia-interested bloggers you know to follow suit! Tell everyone you know about it.

It’s time to let the Very Condescending Bigshot Rich Datuks know, this is the era of IT, where all the little mice can make their voices heard through blogs and non-mainstream media! No more do you control all the channels of communication.

Bullying of the masses will not go unspoken of or unprotested any longer. Try it, and we will make you… ‘Famous’.

Power to the Bloggers!

———————————

SPP Interview Expose – Interview With the Very Condescending Bigshot Rich Datuk

(name of interviewee has been omitted to prevent retributive action)

I was at Jabatan Perdana Menteri yesterday, for an interview with the Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran. It was an interview to confirm my placement into the government service as DG41.

The interview letters stated that we should wear “formal berlengan panjang.” I wore my grey slacks, dark blue long-sleeve shirt, and a silver tie.

Upon arrival at Bilik Temuduga 10, we were told by our room’s interviewer that we need to wear a coat.

Nobody brought any coats from our room. We went out to search for a coat. Around 5 other guys in the entire interview had coats. So we borrowed their coats and passed them around.

When my turn came, I put on the coat and went in.

Right after I said “Selamat pagi Dato,” he asked me where I got the coat from. I said I borrowed it. He said how come I don’t even own a coat. I said the letter did not state that I have to wear a coat, or else I would’ve found one before I came. He scolded me and said I did not know how to interpret the letter.

He asked what kind of pants I was wearing. I said my grey slacks. He said how can that be formal. I said only have 2 pairs of slacks. One black, one grey. The black one, I wore to school on Monday, and now it is being washed. So, today I’m wearing my grey slacks.

He chased me out of the room.

He called me in again after a very long time. It wasn’t an interview. It was a dressing-down, humiliation session. He didn’t really ask me anything much. Here’s the gist of what he said:

“Bapa kamu tahu tak, you seluar hanya ada dua? Kalau dia tahu, dia malu tak, anak dia macam ini?”

I said, hidup saya susah. I explained my family background. And why I have banyak tanggungan.

“You are wrong!! Saya pun tak pernah tanggung orang macam itu. You must change the way you live.”

He looked at my shoes, and he said:

“Kasut kamu tak gilap”

I said, I cycle to school everyday. How to gilap?

“COME ON… YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT!!”

Well, if I don’t have a car, and my school is nearby, and I can’t afford to arrive in an Alfa Romeo, what’s wrong with cycling to school?
“You pakai baju apa itu. Cina tak boleh pakai gelap.”

I said I’m a Christian, I don’t abide by such superstitions. I said by the way, my shirt is blue. Not black.

“Kamu bukan Cina kah? You must be proud to be Chinese… Malaysian Chinese…”

What does he know about being a Malaysian Chinese? We don’t get Datukships and awards like him. We can’t afford to be wearing designer clothes like him. We are not supported by the government’s silver spoon in our mouth from the day we were born. We have to struggle to take care of our families. What does he know?

He said, “Dalam PIPP, ada dinyatakan kita harus memartabatkan profesion keguruan. Apa yang kamu faham tentang itu?”

That is the Teras Kelima in the PIPP. I explained that according to the PIPP blueprint, we are supposed to upgrade the intake system of teachers and improve the working environment of teachers. I wasn’t taking rubbish. That was the textbook answer.

He said, “Tak payah, tak payah. Kalau untuk kamu saja, macam mana?”

I said, “Kena memperbaiki imej, kalau menurut dato.”

He said “Gaji satu bulan berapa? Pergilah beli seluar…”

He even stood up to show me his slacks. He said must buy a pair that costs seratus lebih. That would be a good one.

I cycle to school everyday. My shoes aren’t shined. I can’t afford a pair of slacks that cost over a hundred bucks. I don’t have a coat. I guess I’m not fit to be a teacher.

Well, if they can pay me 4 grand a month, certainly the profession guru’s martabat will be dipertingkatkan, isn’t it?

If what I wear matters so much more than how I teach, my workplace is not in a musty classroom. I should be on the catwalk runway.

Dato’ Haji Abdullah bin Haji Abdul Kadir

http://www.alumnisas.com.my/asas/asasgmbr/dato’HjAbdullah.jpg

Here’s the instigator. I want his arrogance taken down a peg or two. Help me.

- A Little Mouse (real name withheld)

A wandering spirit caring for a multitude of just concerns, you are an instrumental power in many of the causes around you.

And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. 

———— 

 I Am A: Lawful Good Elf Bard Mage

Alignment:
Lawful Good characters are the epitome of all that is just and good. They believe in order and governments that work for the benefit of all, and generally do not mind doing direct work to further their beliefs.

Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.

Primary Class:
Bards are the entertainers. They sing, dance, and play instruments to make other people happy, and, frequently, make money. They also tend to dabble in magic a bit.

Secondary Class:
Mages harness the magical energies for their own use. Spells, spell books, and long hours in the library are their loves. While often not physically strong, their mental talents can make up for this.

Find out What D&D Character You Are, courtesy of Zinious Software corporation

—————

Which Hogwarts house will you be sorted into?

This is a reply to one of the comments by Ryan about the post regarding the Church of God, World Mission Society.The main reason why I decided almost immediately that this organization was a cult was because of the scriptures. Ignorant comments? These are comments informed by the Word of God and I believe they were brought to mind by the Holy Spirit. I know my bible and I live my life according to it’s instructions.

Jesus did say we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. However, just because He is the Passover Lamb and we want to eat His flesh and drink His blood, it doesn’t mean that celebrating the Passover will give us salvation. Neither does practicing communion guarantee salvation.

The truth is that there is only ONE way to receive salvation, and the others are less important. Believing in Christ as the Son of God and receiving Him as one’s Lord and Savior is the ONLY way to be saved. Practicing the Passover and even Holy Communion are extra things. While they are of importance to the life of a believer, they are not the critical element of salvation. Believing and confessing with one’s mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior is.

Jesus did not give His disciples His flesh and blood to eat and drink literally. He is the bread of heaven, the Word of God. What He meant was that to receive salvation one needs the Word of God in one’s life and the cleansing of the Blood of Christ. So to eat His flesh is to feed on His Word, and to drink His blood is to be cleansed by His blood and live with Him on the inside.

The Church of God most likely isn’t making up scriptures. However, they are doing the following:

1) Reinterpreting scriptures to fit their doctrines
2) Misinterpreting scriptures
3) Twisting doctrines to suit their purposes

There are many prophecies in the Bible, that second coming Christ will bring back the Passover. This will be like his identification card so we can recognize the true Christ from among all the false Christs in the world.” That in itself is insufficient to prove that a person is the Christ. Anyone who has read the books of Revelation, Daniel and portions of the prophets will know that there are more criterion to fulfill that merely restoring the Passover. The “second coming Christ” in Korea was barely noticeable. When Jesus returns again, He will come in glory and in power, at such a time that the Jews will return to Him. Is now the time? Was a few years ago the time? Right at this instant is NOT the time, neither was it the time a few years ago. Honestly, if Jesus has already come back, why is there still the following:

1) Sin abounds all over the place
2) Mankind has not been judged
3) Christians have not been raptured
4) The Anti-Christ and Satan have not come to Earth and made their one government empire

Anyway, how can Jesus die again? He is no longer in corporeal form. He is now Spirit. How can a Spirit die and return to heaven again like the “second coming Jesus” in Korea, who is dead? That makes zero sense.

The existence of the Heavenly Mother is nonexistent. The bible neither testifies of such an entity in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Has there ever been a revival of the doctrine of the Heavenly Mother? No. Why is it that when Jesus prayed, He only prayed to the heavenly Father? Is the Heavenly Mother so unimportant that her “son” totally ignores her when He prays? In fact, if the Heavenly Mother is of equal standing to God the Father, why oh why is there so little mention of the Heavenly Mother save in a few, easily misinterpretable scriptures? Why is the whole New Testament almost totally devoid of a single EXPLICIT mention if the heavenly mother? Compare that with other core doctrines in the church: Holy Communion, Confession of Sins, Water Baptism, Holy Spirit Baptism, Speaking in Tongues, Spiritual Gifts. Each one is given explicit, specific mention in the Bible more than once.

One more minor point: When the Lord returns something to the church, He doesn’t do it in a small way. It might start out small, but it will spread like wildfire. The Azusa street revival spread very quickly. This heavenly mother movement has been around for quite some time, and yet it has failed to penetrate the core of Christianity. When God does something, does He only do it for a few churches here and there? The answer is a resounding NO! He does it for all His churches, all around the world, around the same time and whatever He restores will be accepted by most of us. That has been the way which He has moved His churches in the past, and that is the most likely way He will move His churches in the future.

Church of God, World Mission Society may not be a cult in the traditional sense of the word, but it definitely is not the way to salvation.

I writed a children’s story for my Social Psychology module. It’s supposed to illustrate a concept in Social Psychology, complete with pictures. I drew all the illustrations and rewrote the first draft from my group members. It was hard work because 1) I’m just not talented at drawing and 2) I drew half of them with a bad fever and terrible muscle aches due to food poisoning.Domino and the Spots by Jamie Thong, Jocelyn Liao, Chor Liang:

              Once upon a time, in the town of Roverton, there lived a spotted dog named Domino. He had a nice, white coat with lovely spots all over him.

              Domino was a friendly dog, and he got along well with everyone he met. Domino lived on Boney Street, and he had many friends. All his friends were just like him; they all had spotted coats like he did. Together they formed the group, the “Spots”.

              There was Larry, a real cool dog. He was stylish and knew all the cool things to do, like chasing after fire trucks and disturbing postmen.

                 There was also Bruce, a plump and jolly dog who just loved to eat and eat and eat.

                Then there was Yapper. He was a little dog who talked a lot. He could be really annoying when he wouldn’t shut up, but he was still a great dog. He was after all, a member of the Spots. That made him great straight away.

                 The leader of the Spots was Ricky. Ricky was tall, handsome and strong. He was the best leader a group could ever have. He knew lots of things, and was always thinking of fun things to do.

 

                Domino loved being a member of the Spots. They were simply the best ever group in town. No one had as much fun as they did. The Spots weren’t the only group of dogs in town, however. Down along Boney Lane lived another group of dogs called “the Plain-coats”. They were formed by other dogs who were unlucky dogs; they only had plain coats. The Plain-coats were made up of Rocko, Phil, Maurice, Olly, and their leader Spike. As far as Domino was concerned, they were all the same. They looked the same, talked the same and did the same boring things. They were so much like one another that he thought they might all be clones! It was hard to tell them apart because they were so similar.

               The Spots and the Plain-coats were rivals. Both wanted to get control of the park. The park was the best spot in town to do all sorts of stuff. Whether it was just hanging out, digging for bones, or just lazing around, you name it; the park was the best place for it. So far, neither group had managed to beat the other, even after many contests. Somehow, although the Spots were better by far, the Plain-coats would always find a way to make things even. Domino suspected that they were cheats. It’s just something that a plain-coat would resort to, them being Plain-coats after all.

 Scissors Paper Stone competition

 Eating Contest

 Digging Contest

             One day, Ricky had had enough of the Plain-coats stopping them from claiming the park as their own.

            “Hey Spots!” he cried. “I’ve had enough of these plain-coats stopping us from using our park. What say we teach them a lesson today and chase them away for good?”

            “But Ricky,” Bruce said, “What are we going to do?”

            Cool Larry added “Yeah chief, we ain’t beaten ‘em yet. How we gon’a make ‘em learn their lesson?”

            “Simple. I’ve got a plan!” Ricky said proudly.

            “Ooh ooh a plan! A plan! Wow, a plan! This is exciting, so so exciting! What we gonna do? What we gonna do? Cmon’ Ricky, tell us, tell us!” yapper cried excitedly.

            “I will, yapper, if you’d just shut up” Ricky said in annoyance.

“What we’ll do is challenge them to a race. We’ll race them around the park, and whoever loses has to leave the park for good! We all know how slow and heavy those Plain-coats are. There’s no way we’ll fail!”

            “Hooray! Hooray! Aw Ricky, that’s a brilliant plan! You’re a genius!” cried yapper, as he ran about full of excitement.

            “Of course I am, I’m the leader of the Spots! The best group ever in Roverton!” Ricky said proudly. “Now stop your yapping and let’s go find those Plain-coats”.

Domino was excited. At last, the plain-coats would be beaten and the park would be theirs! The Spots went down to Boney Lane and challenged the Plain-coats.

 

 

            “Ho! Ye think ye’re bettr ‘an us eh? Well just ye watch, we Plain-coats will make yer sorry ye ever thought o’ this idea!” Spike said.

“Ver’ well! I can’t wait ta hav’ the park all ta ourselves! Say yer’ prayers, silly Spots!” Spike added confidently.

“Who does he think he is?!” Bruce muttered angrily.

“Relax Bruce,” Ricky said. “We’ll see them running away with their tails between their legs in no time!”

 

It was decided. The Spots would race against the Plain-coats three times around the park. Whoever came in first would get the park all to themselves! As the Spots and Plain-coats marched to the park, Domino could hardly contain his excitement. He was thinking of all the fun he’d have with the Spots once they’d kicked those Plain-coats out of the park.

When they got to the park, to their surprise they saw a great big dog lying in the middle of the park. It was Rex! Rex was the fierce, monstrous big bully from the next town. He’d come to Roverton every once in a while to cause trouble. To the horror of both groups, he was here today, in their park!

When Rex saw them, he bared his sharp teeth at them and growled: “Little dogs, what do you think you are doing in my park?”

 

 

“Your park! This park belongs to the Spots!” shouted Ricky indignantly.

“No, it belongs ta’ the plain-coats!” Spike protested.

“Oh-ho, it does now?” Rex said menacingly. “Well too bad little doggies, this park is mine now. Now scram before I eat you all for lunch!”

            Rex dashed at them and all the dogs scattered in fear.

“So long, little doggies. I’ll be waiting if you come back.” laughed the nasty Rex.

            Outside the park, Ricky and Spike started arguing.

            “Can’t you Plain-coats do anything right! You cowards!” shouted Ricky.

            “Look, ye’ flea-bitten Spot, ye’ ran away too! Don’ ye’ start callin’ us cowards when ye’ can’t even stand up to ‘im!” growled Spike angrily.

            As they argued, the rest of the dogs watched them dejectedly. Domino was disappointed and down. Maurice, one of the Plain-coats, was sitting next to him.

            “This is bad,” whined Domino.

            “Yeah. What’re we going to do now that that horrible Rex has taken the park?” sighed Maurice.

            “I don’t know,” Domino whined again.

            “I just wish they wouldn’t fight like that,” Maurice said.

“Yup,” agreed Domino.

 

 

 

As he talked with Maurice for a while more, he began to feel that perhaps not all the Plain-coats were the same. Maurice at least didn’t talk funny like that Spike. Domino found that he agreed with quite a number of things that Maurice said. He was surprised that a Plain-coat could be so nice. Perhaps the Plain-coats weren’t as bad after all.

All of a sudden, an idea hit Domino. Why, they were all from Roverton. Why should they let a nasty outsider like Rex push them around? It was their town park, and it should be theirs. He thought to himself “We’re ten dogs, and he’s only one! If we work together, he won’t stand a chance!”

 

Leaping up, he shouted to the Ricky and Spike.

“Hey! Guys! Why not we work together? We can chase that Rex back to where he came from. He’s only one dog; we’ve got 10 of us! We’re all Roverton dogs, we shouldn’t let an outsider push us around like that!”

Spike’s ears perked up. “’ey, I think that feller’s got an point! If we all worked together we can chase ‘im away”.

“But…but…” Ricky protested.

“Ooh! Ooh! That’s a great idea! We can all work together and drive that Rex away! Ooh this is so exciting! Roverton dogs working together against an outside dog! C’mon chief, let’s do it!” Yapper shouted, full of excitement.

“Yeah! Let’s work together!” said the rest of the dogs.

Faced with the chorus of agreement, Ricky was convinced. The dogs decided to band together to from a new, bigger group of both Spots and Plain-coats: The Roverton Hounds. Together, they would show Rex who was boss in Roverton.

Off to the park they went, with determination in each step. As they neared the place where Rex was lazing, he sat up and eyed them menacingly.

“Oh, the little dogs are back. Perfect timing, I was just getting hungry. Did you all get tired of being alive?” Rex mocked at the dogs.

“Hounds, let’s get him!” cried Ricky.

“Charge!” yelled Spike.

The Roverton Hounds rushed at Rex as one. Stunned, Rex could only cover his head with his paws as the dogs, barking and growling all the way, jumped on him. They pummeled him and gave it to him with all they had. As the blows rained on him, Rex begged for mercy. Struggling to free himself, he cried out in terror. Finally, the Hounds let him go, and he fled from the park, fear in his eyes. Rex was never seen in Roverton again.

 

 

 

“We did it! We did it!” Yapper cried, dancing for joy!

“We sure did,” Spike agreed.

Spike and Ricky looked at one another, and shook paws. “Great working with you,” Ricky said.

“Same ta’ ya” Spike nodded.

The other dogs all started shaking paws and talked excitedly. That day, after working together, they decided to abandon their differences and share the park with one another. The Spots and the Plain-coats were no more. Now, there was only the Roverton Hounds. The Hounds had even more fun than they had before, and everyone lived happily ever after.

The End.

Today, I was approached by a Korean as I was coming back from work. For some reason, I decided to do his survey. I was a little surprised to see that it (apparently) was about Christianity, because it asked questions that at a shallow glance would seem to be used by Christians to initiate outreach. They were questions such as “Did you know that Jesus commanded us to celebrate the Passover in order to receive eternal life?” and “Do you know what 666 means?”. Then the questions got a little strange to me. Next up was “Do you know what Jesus’ name will be when He comes again?”, “Do you know that Jesus second coming will be from the east?” and “Have you ever heard of the Heavenly Mother?”. Red flags went off.

“Must be one of those…” I thought to myself. Never mind, polite as I was I decided to let the man have his say. I must really thank God that I was wearing shades. That way, the guy couldn’t see my expression fully.

This organisation seems to be the usual cult stuff. Among the notable core doctrines (and my comments) are:

1) Jesus has already come back (and now He’s dead again. Like, how many times does He have to die? lol)
2) Jesus came back in the east, which was South Korea (Why Korea and not Japan? Japan is farther east after all)
3) The bible has been changed/locked and only the returned Jesus can open it (so what’s different from what the Latter-Day Saints and Islam teaches?)
4) There is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father (Seventh Day Adventists/LDS anyone?)
5) Earthly family is a shadow of the heavenly family. So the reason there are brothers and sisters in earth is because there’s a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother in heaven (so does that mean that brothers and sisters are supposed to get married to each other?)

After reading up on it a little on Wikipedia, I find that it’s just the same as most of the other cults. Nothing much new except different country and different new Jesus.

I really wanted to tell the man that he was believing in a load of crock, but I decided that I didn’t want to argue with him and hurt his feelings. Besides, I had just let him have 20 minutes of my time already.

What I would now like to comment on is the Heavenly Mother. I am not sure how much of the bible they say is locked up/corrupted (perhaps it’s like Islam where seemingly arbitrary bits and pieces of scripture retain their true meaning and only Islamic scholars can seperate the dross from the gold), but the CoG WMS believes that the “bride” referred to in Revelation 22:17 refers to the Heavenly Mother.

“The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come’! And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life”

Okay fair enough. So…what about Revelation 21:9?

“One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Wait. Isn’t the Lamb talking about Jesus Christ? With all the numerous allusions to Christ as the sacrificial Lamb, I don’t think Rev 21:9 is talking about the Heavenly Father here. So let’s put two and two together:

“The bride is the wife of Jesus Christ” + ”The bride is the Heavenly Mother” = Jesus Christ is in His Heavenly Mother’s pants

Yuck. Yuck Yuck Yuck! I don’t want no Jesus who marries His own Mother. Maybe that’s why we have mé·nage à trois on earth: the Heavenly Father and the CoG WMS Jesus are banging the Heavenly Mother together.

What’s resilience?

 Wikipedia says: Resilience generally means the ability to recover from (or to resist being affected by) some shock, insult, or disturbance.

 I came across a big ant outside my room. I hate ants, so I decided to toast it (cleanest way to kill bugs) with a lighter. That was around 12 am. The big ant stopped moving. One hour later, I came across it moving again! This is a tough bug.

Vid is here: (does WordPress auto disable embedding Youtube videos? ZzzZz)

The vid was taken using my camera, so it’s very shaky. Anyway, I decided to toast it again. Did I mention I really hate ants?

Recently, I read a post by Cheryl Lim regarding Gabriel Seah’s blog.

I may not agree with everything Cheryl said about Gabriel, but she’s defending God’s name with a passion. What I find very very disturbing are the people, naming themselves as Christians, preaching to her not to be so fiery when speaking out against attacks on God’s name. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this happen. On other blogs, people who call themselves Christians preach to the writers not to be so worked up by what other people say about the Lord. Beginning with statements such as “dear brother/sister in Christ”, and “my dear brother/sister” in an attempt to affiliate themselves with the writer and make their words more likely to be accepted by the reader, these crusaders against Christians like to accuse others of lacking tolerance, respect, wisdom, and all other sorts of qualities.

My question is why these people want to spend so much time preaching to Christians who are standing up in defense of God’s reputation when they can instead do their part in refuting the attacks on God. As Christians, shouldn’t we all place number 1 priority on defending the name of our Father? Is He not worth defending with all we have? Is He not a great king, whose name is to be feared (Strong’s: Hebrew yare; respected/revered)  among the nations (Malachi 1:14)?

In the case of Cheryl, she did say some things that were direct attacks on Gabriel’s character and physical appearance. These were a little unnecessary in my opinion. The point however, is that she did her part in speaking out against what Gabriel wrote against God. Did the preaching Christians do the same? I don’t know.

N.B. I know Gabriel Seah in real life. He’s my friend. I don’t agree with his views on Christianity and I absolutely hate his attacks on my church and my God, but then again, you don’t always have to like someone 100% to be their friend. That’s the nature of USP; a very diverse population with very diverse views who can disagree and fight (civilly, of course :P) about almost anything under the sun and yet still maintain friendly relations.

I don’t know Cheryl Lim in real life, but she’s on fire for Christ and absolutely lost in love with Jesus. That speaks for itself.