Twice a victim

I'm all for fun and pranks of all kinds but bullying and ragging are not fun pranks.  Bullying and ragging are the same except that ragging (I won't use the American word which is getting increasingly popular but is still relatively unknown where I live and I mean to keep it that way) is just an organised form of bullying.  A group because of its size and strength or hierarchical position asserts control and dominion over an individual or group by humiliating, debasing or even hurting them.  Ragging usually takes place in schools, colleges and organised groups such as the army.

Someone recently sent me a video of ragging in the Thai military (see screen shot above).  It seemed more like harmless play as the recruits did a circle dance and sang (very badly) Loi Krathong.  But what annoyed me in the video were the senior officers in the Thai military.  They were busy filming the recruits.  It then occurred to me that the video that was sent to me must have come originally from one such officer.

Why would any sane man film a group of recruits doing a silly dance? There can only be one reason - to humiliate them.  After the dance, the recruits were only allowed a few seconds to wash themselves and it was time to leave the bathroom.  It was obvious that their bath time had been used up by the officers who ordered them to do the silly dance.

It is true that the recruits appeared to be in good spirits and the ragging was more amusing than abusive and there was a group of them so it was all quite harmless.

Here's a pic which I screen-saved from a video, the source of which I'm not at liberty to reveal because it was taken in a military facility and for this reason, I won't even state which country the video was taken in.

The pic is of course self-explanatory and it really is a perfectly harmless activity even if it's childish.  The target ("victim" would not be the correct word here) reacted with a string of Hokkien obscenities.  There is no abuse of military rank here, unlike in the Thai army ragging.  The target is a friend, totally accepted by the rest of the group and after this incident, I have no doubt their friendship remained intact.  Bullying or ragging is hardly the word for such an activity. 

Ragging in its more serious form happened in Singapore a few years ago in the Singapore Civil Defence Force or SCDF.  Here's what Asia One says:

(Source: http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20081107-98996.html)

 







What I find shocking and totally unacceptable is SCDF's decision to punish all parties including the victim.  SCDF concludes that the victim was a willing participant in the episode.


Here's what SCDF says:

(Source: http://news.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20081124-102859.html)






Anyone who has seen the full uncensored video is sure to come to the conclusion that the victim was not a willing party in the affair.  It's true that the victim waved at the camera at one point but you don't have to be an expert in human behavioural science to understand what must have gone on in his mind.  He wanted to be good-natured despite the humiliation and he didn't want to appear weak.  But he was no willing participant.  His hands and feet were bound and his bullies were nasty and malicious.  They zoomed in on his face and his genitals to maximize his shame.  And they posted it on the internet and it even went on international sites that host videos of serious crimes such as the beheading videos by Muslim extremists.  The victim was thoroughly humiliated and debased.  The others may have urged him to say he consented to the whole thing so as to get them off the hook and he may have done that because of his good nature.  But SCDF should have known better.  Of course SCDF was dreadfully wrong.  By the disciplinary action they meted out to the victim as well, they have made the poor chap twice a victim.

Why Can't the Straits Times Get it Right?

This is what I read this morning from yahoo news:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/chinese-embassy-expresses-regret-over-ferrari-accident.html

But since yahoo news is notorious for not keeping an archive of its news, the entire article is produced below from my screen-save function (you may ignore the first three images which I've included for the sake of completeness but you need only read the text in the two last images below):

I thought the error was the sort I would expect of the Chinese Embassy.  China is known for more egregious blunders in English than this and I'm always more ready to excuse it but these words jumped off the page and caught my attention: "...said the letter written in CHINESE".   Ah ha!  So, it's back to our embarrassing Singaporean journalists again!  I searched all over the article to see who in yahoo could have made this error.  The top of the article (this can be seen in the second image above) says the article was written by "Yahoo Newsroom".  Now, that's not good enough.  I need a person to pin the error to.

I then read the article again and the culprit was staring at me in the face - the letter from the Embassy was written to the Straits Times, my old friend.  The Straits Times is a newspaper that takes the cake when it comes to the number of grammatical mistakes a newspaper can possibly make.  What's really hilarious about this newspaper is it can publish an article on English usage and make outrageous errors within the article itself.  I have lost count of the number of times I have written to its editor about some grammatical error in his paper and I'm ALWAYS told that they would not publish my letter because it's "embarrassing" to their journalists.  But they've never failed to assure me that they would "alert the newsroom" which of course isn't satisfactory to me.  I am always tempted to post the exchange of letters I've had with the Straits Times but I don't want to be thought of as a petty pedant, which I certainly am not.

Now, it's clear yahoo got the news from the Straits Times and repeated its translation of the Embassy's letter from Mandarin to English.  But that was not the end of the matter for me.  I was curious to see who the journalist was who made the error.

The yahoo link led me to the article in the Straits Times:
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_799792.html

I have also screen-saved the Straits Times article and here it is:

Now, we have it.  The error that no average English user will make did not originate from the Chinese Embassy.  Even if did, it can't really be faulted since everyone knows English is as foreign a language in China as Urdu is in Singapore.

Neither did it originate from the Yahoo newsroom.  Yahoo had merely copied verbatim its source, the Straits Times.

The article was written by one Bryna Sim.  I have something to say about the name "Bryna" but before I do so, I have to know if she gave herself the name or it was given to her by her parents.  Those who are not familiar with this strange phenomenon of giving oneself a name (which is always either a Western name or a name that sounds Western) should spend some time in Singapore.  I have a lot to say about this but most of it has been said by Lee Wei Ling (Lee Kuan Yew's daughter) whom I absolutely adore simply because she's even more politically incorrect than I can ever be.

For a previous posting on the Straits Times and the English language, click here.

Women were better treated by Jesus and St Paul

Women were certainly far better treated by Jesus and St Paul than they were by the church.  I just went through the notes I made when I read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus a few years ago.  I don't always make notes when I read but it's very useful when I do.  Since today is Mother's Day, I thought it would be appropriate to share (without any editing) the notes I made with respect to the treatment of women by our Lord and St Paul and compare it with the way the church subsequently behaved towards them.

Here are the notes.  They are a summary of Bart Ehrman's section on women in his book.  If there are errors or if you find bits and pieces incomprehensible, it's because I reduced the text to a highly summarised version purely for my own personal reference and I used my own words in many places for that purpose.  If you want to read more fully, please buy his book.  It was on the New York Times' Bestseller List for a long time.

To all women and it doesn't matter if they are mothers, grandmothers or even childless, HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!



Women and the Texts of Scripture

WOMEN IN THE EARLY CHURCH

Jesus's closest followers were men as is to be expected of a Jewish teacher but he was accompanied by many women in his travels, some of whom provided for him and his disciples financially, serving as patrons for his itinerant preaching ministry.  See Mark 15:40-51; Luke 8:1-3.  Jesus engaged in public dialogue with women and ministered to them in public (Mark 7:24-30; John 4:1-42).  Women accompanied Jesus in his final trip to Jerusalem where they were present at his crucifixion and remained faithful to the end while the male disciples had fled (Matt 27:55; Mark 15:40-41).  It was Mary Magdalene alone or with other female companions who discovered his empty tomb and were the first to know about and testify to Jesus's resurrection (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 23:55- 24:10; John 20:1-2).

Why were women attracted to Jesus's message?  Many scholars are convinced that Jesus proclaimed a Kingdom of God which had no injustice and all people, rich, poor, slave, free, men and women would be on an equal footing.  This appealed to the poor, the sick, the outcast and the women.

Celsus levelled a charge against Christianity that largely children, slaves and women were attracted to the religion and Origen did not deny it.

Even earlier than that, in Paul's time, Paul mentions Phoebe who is a deacon or minister in the church of Cenchreae and Paul's own patron whom he entrusts with the task of carrying his letter to Rome (vv 1-2).
Prisca and her husband Aquila (missionary work among Gentiles and have a congregation in their home (vv 3-4; notice Prisca is mentioned first).
Mary, Paul's colleague (v 6)
Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis whom Paul calls his "co-workers" in the gospel (vv 6, 12)
Julia and the mother of Rufus and the sister of Nereus all had high profile in the community (vv 13, 15)
Most impressive: Junia whom Paul calls "foremost among the apostles" (v 7).  The apostolic band was evidently much larger than the 12 men we are familiar with.

All this is unusual in the Greco-Roman world.

Paul's message of equality is seen in Gal 3:27-28.

But women had to cover their heads, etc (1 Cor 11:3-16, esp v 10). Paul did not urge a social revolution in the relationship of men and women just as he did not urge the abolition of slavery even though in Christ there is "neither slave nor free". Instead, he insisted that since "the time is short" (until the coming of the Kingdom), everyone should be content with their roles - whether slave, free, married, single, male or female (1 Cor 7:17-24).

Ambivalent attitude of the role of women (Paul acknowledges their important roles but he still says they needed an authority over their heads) led to differences of views after his day -equality in Christ emphasized or the need for women's subservience to men.  Documents after Paul's death shows dispute as to the role of women in his churches.  Eventually, there was an effort to suppress the role of women in the church altogether.

Scholars today are by and large convinced that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but one of his later second-generation followers. (See Ehrman, The New Testament, Chap 23).  1 Tim 2:11-15 seems a long way from Paul's view that "in Christ there is ... not male and female".  As we move into the second century, the battle lines appear clearly drawn.

The scribes were clearly embroiled in these debates.  In every instance when a text is changed,  it is done to limit the role of women and to minimise their importance.  We will consider just a few examples.

TEXTUAL ALTERATIONS INVOLVING WOMEN

1 Cor 14:34-35.  Most scholars are convinced that 1 Tim is not written by Paul. No one doubts that Paul wrote 1 Cor.  But there are doubts about vv 34-35 which are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses.  In 3 Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here but after verse 40.  Some scribe could have written the verses in the margin, influenced by 1 Tim and they later got copied into the text.

Good reasons why these verses were not written by Paul.
They do not fit well into their immediate context. Paul is dealing with the issue of prophecy in church and giving instructions on how to behave during worship.  This is the theme of verses 26 to 33 and 36 to 40.  Without the disputed verses, the passage would have flowed smoothly.

Next, these verses are anomalous with what Paul says elsewhere in 1 Cor.  In chap 11, he says that when women pray or prophesy (activities that were always done aloud in Christian worship), they are to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16).   Paul would not have contradicted himself within the space of 3 chapters.

Rom 16:7 Junia who was called a foremost apostle by Paul was changed to Junias, a male name.  But Junia is a common female name, there is no evidence in the ancient world for Junias as a man's name.

Some scribes changed the verse to read "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and also greet my fellow prisoners who are foremost among the apostles."

Acts 17:4 "large number of prominent women" was changed by some scribes to "large number of wives of prominent men".

Some scribes even changed the order of appearance of the names to read "Aquila and Priscilla" as in Acts and also in Rom 16:3.

Indian cum.... Yuck!!!!!

No, I'm not being racist.  You can replace "Indian" with "Chinese" or any other races or even any of the species in the animal kingdom and I will still say "YUCK!!!"  The Japanese eat the whale variety but they eat many other things too and I'm certainly not Japanese!

Here's the pic.  What do you think the two women are being served?

For those who can't really see the pic and refuse to click on it for the larger photo, here's a zoomed-in pic:

It all started last night (yes, it's as recent as that) when I saw on a friend's Facebook wall a photograph of this signboard.  Readers of my blog must know that I love collecting photographs of funny signage.  Most of them are in other countries, particularly China.  Photographs of funny signs in China are a dime a dozen.  When I heard from my friend that this signboard was in Singapore, I decided I had to act fast before the owner wised up and removed it.

It did not surprise me in the least this sign was found in a food court in some God-forsaken part of Singapore.  It was not easy to get to this place.  I set off early this morning with the help of google maps (what can one do without google in this day and age?) and had to negotiate a road full of lorries and large construction vehicles because I was on my way to the Boondocks of Singapore.  The food court is deep within a large building that looks more like a gigantic warehouse in Pasir Gudang in Johor than any building in Singapore.

I felt I had to order something from the stall since I was going to take pics of the signboard.  But I wanted to eat mee goreng from a Malay stall at the same food court.  So I got myself just one thosai from Indian Cum:

I must confess I didn't eat the white chutney.  I then ate my mee goreng from the Malay stall before leaving the place.

From the brief moment it took for me to place an order with the stall owner, I could instantly tell that the proprietor of Indian Cum was not comfortable with the English language and hence, the name.  I think he's not a Singaporean but a native Indian.  But I have no doubt that it's only a matter of time when the mistake will be brought to his attention and the sign removed.  But that's ok.  I have the photos and that's all that matters.

Why the Defence of God Infuriates Me

When I first discovered how insupportable the God theory was, I was devastated.  I had lived my entire life on the supposition that God existed, his will, purpose and teachings were all contained in the Holy Bible and every doctrine of the Christian faith was not just true but demonstrably true.  Of course, like all good Christians, I did not go further to investigate how Christian "truths" could be shown to be true; I merely accepted that they were all true.  It was only when I read up more and tried my hand at defending the faith that I realized how utterly defenceless faith was.

At that point, I took it upon myself to read up every argument in favour of God.  I was not one to let the grass grow under my feet and I researched extensively into the subject.  It was easy to weed out the dunces from the scholars.  The dunces are people who know nothing about real Bible scholarship and they write mainly popular books that appeal to the Christian masses but their facts are at best broad generalizations or at times totally concocted and even fine Christian scholars would blushingly avoid them.  Josh McDowell, an apologist I admired when I was a boy in school, is of course one of the dunces.  His "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that meant so much to me as a boy are books that should go under the category of "Jokes".  His arguments are the same old ludicrous arguments that CS Lewis first forwarded a century ago.  Today, most Christians are too embarrassed to bring up these arguments in a debate with atheists because they are so obviously flawed and it wouldn't take an atheist more than a minute to chew them up and spit them all out in the Christian's face.  I have limited time for this entry and I won't discuss how wrong McDowell/Lewis' argument is unless someone really needs me to go through it which I am prepared to do in a separate blog entry.  McDowell's section on the canon of scriptures is shoddy, misleading and easily dismissed.  Anyone who's read the real scholars Bruce Metzger and FF Bruce on the canon will know McDowell was talking through his behind when he wrote the book.

I don't want to say anything bad about McDowell; I'm sure he's a fine Christian and I respect him for that.  I recall how excited I was when he visited my university and I wanted his autograph very badly and the only book I had with me was my textbook on Family Law.  He was gracious enough to sign it and he included a biblical quotation and he made a joke about how wrong divorces were and to be fair to me, I have never in my entire life done a single matrimonial matter and so you might say I took McDowell's advice quite seriously.

McDowell has no pretensions about being a scholar.  He's an apologist and his job is simply to defend the Christian faith.  He hasn't got the depth of learning and scholarship that Bruce Metzger and FF Bruce have.

So I was desperately looking for strong arguments in defence of God.  Sadly, every debate that I read or watched on the net ended with atheists beating us Christians flat.  In every argument, we were floored and given the knock-out blow.  Our embarrassing defeats continued debate after debate until I stumbled upon a shrewd and sly debater called William Lane Craig.

Craig is a philosophy teacher and he is a professional debater.  He seems to beat the atheists who are unfortunate enough to have to debate with him.  So, do I rejoice in this formidable champion and defender of God?  Not in the least.

You see, what I want to see in a debate is honest victory in God's favour.  I need an affirmation that my faith is true.  But Craig is not what I would call an honest debater.  He is artful and deceitful.  I'm sorry I have to refer to a Christian debater as deceitful but that is precisely what he is.  Every time I listen to him, I get this very uncomfortable feeling in me that here is Christendom's most illustrious conman.  Craig's arguments are always the same old trite arguments that my poor fellow Christians have been using for the past few centuries.  But what makes Craig different is he conceals the unfair arguments in such a way that his opponent fails to see why the arguments are flawed or unfair.  His methods are varied but they are all underhanded.  He uses technicalities, sophistry, play of words and confusion to defeat his unwary opponent.  I can give examples of every method he has used so far.  I've even seen him start his debate by insulting the opponent and his books as a preemptive measure.  I've seen him declaring "universal truths" and try to bind his opponents to those "truths".  I have seen him use old and hackneyed philosophical arguments (that have long been abandoned by most Christian apologists) but by playing on words, he gives a new lease of life to these flawed arguments.

I used to get very uncomfortable after listening to Craig and as time went by, I became angry.  Craig must know he's dishonest so does he really believe in God?  By that time of course, I had lost all hope of ever finding a Christian debater who could argue effectively for God without resorting to deceit and technicalities.  God is a lost cause as far as debates go.  The other thing about Craig's bag of tricks is it made me see how incredibly honest atheists were.  St John's Gospel tells us that those who tell lies have Satan for their father.  It's the atheists who are Christ's true followers in the usual religious debate that I read or see.

The reason why I write this post is I have just listened to an old debate.  Craig and two other religious chaps were debating with Dawkins, Shermer and another atheist in Mexico in 2010.  I listened to Craig's 6-minute talk and I felt the old anger rising.  Why can't Craig go to God on his knees and ask for the strength to be honest?

In that short talk, Craig wanted to forward an unfair argument.  He wanted to make the atheists prove a negative, that God does not exist.  Any idiot knows that you can't prove a negative.  Nobody can prove that invisible fairies don't exist or Bertrand Russell's celestial tea-cup doesn't exist.  We can't prove that there really is no Santa Claus on flying reindeer any more than we can prove that there are no pixies, leprechauns or purple unicorns with pink polka dots.  The usual rule is if you assert the existence of any object or entity, the onus must be on you to prove its existence.

But we Christians don't like that because there is ZILCH evidence for God's existence.  Our God is Almighty, all-compassionate and highly intervening in human affairs, so we believe.  And yet there is ABSOLUTELY not a shred of evidence for his existence.  Craig knows this and he knows that in a debate he's got to unfairly push the burden of proof onto the atheists.  He also knows that to say at the outset that he wants atheists to prove a negative would be so obviously wrong that he'll probably be jeered by the audience.  So what he does in each debate that I've seen him in is to hide the fact that he's shifting the burden of proof deceitfully.  In the Mexico debate, this is how he did it.

The debate is on whether there is a purpose in the universe.  Craig starts off by saying that there are two statements that his opponents are sure to accept.  If there is a God, there will be a purpose in the universe.  If there is no God, there is no purpose in the universe.  So far, so good.  He goes on to say that if his opponents are to succeed, they will have to show that there is no purpose in the universe and they can't succeed in that unless they also show that there is no God in the first place.  There you are!!!  Burden of proof shifted unfairly again!

This is really very sad.  This is not the first time I have caught Craig up to his tricks.  There was another debate that I listened to and I managed to list 5 lies or deceitful remarks that he came up with in the short space of 5 minutes or so.  After having read and listened to countless debates between my fellow Christians and atheists, I am now very cautious when I listen to the Christian speakers.  I react towards my fellow Christians the way I do towards a gypsy woman carrying a baby who accosts me in the middle of a road in Rome.  I become wary, cautious and I hold on to my possessions.  And this is not the impression our Lord wants Christians to give to others.  Even in a debate for God, we MUST uphold the most rigorous standard of honesty or if we think we can't win in the debate without being dishonest, we always have the option of avoiding the atheist altogether.

I set out to justify my faith by listening to arguments in favour of God and what I got from it is nothing less than clear evidence that my fellow Christians are dishonest when they argue for God.  What does that do to my faith?

I wish my fellow Christians will remember the words of our Lord that lies come from the Father of Lies, ie Satan.  Even if we are debating for God and we are desperate because we are fighting a losing battle, we should still be totally honest.  As an honest Christian, my approach is different from Craig's.  I openly admit that there is absolutely no evidence for God's existence.   I openly admit that the problem of evil does show that logically, God can't be both omnipotent and all-compassionate.  I am totally honest about the outrageous contradictions and concoctions in the Bible and the total unreliability of the Bible and there are serious flaws in its canon, compilation, scribal corruption and transmission.

I really wish there were no problems with the faith but I know that's not true.  And of course I'm quite unlike Craig and some of these Christian defenders in that for me, truth is really of paramount importance.  I know I can tell lies for God and I certainly have done that in the past (I mentioned this in an earlier blog post) but I have for a long time now resolved to be perfectly honest when I'm dealing with the truth or the lack of it in my own religion.