Monday, July 25, 2005

Because it's so dodgy...


This subject isn't black or white. It's gray. During an Anthropology lecture, a lecturer posed this question.

Did God create man or did man create God?

People who believe in faith would agree with the former while those who belive in the religion of science would probably go with the latter. We all know most religious faiths believe that God is the ultimate creator, but could it also be possible that man was the ultimate creator?

Man evolved from primates, became self-reliant and developed intelligence as life progressed. How is it not possible that they could have created God in a bid to relieve themselves of the burden of answering all questions and claiming full responsibility? With a supposed powerful supreme being who cannot be seen but can only be trusted, they have generally unloaded a huge amount of responsibility on God. During early times, famine, draught, sickness, death etc. were all blamed on God(s). But in reality, they could have very well been the faults of their own (or nature) and yet, man chose to shirk responsibility, knowing that they could blame it on God.

"God is, to me, pretty much an idea. God is, to me, pretty much a myth created over time to deny the idea that we're all responsible for our own actions." - Seth Green

Personally, I think that the subject of God is truly the greatest conspiracy of all-time. Even greater, than some might say, the question of Jessica Simpson's intelligence. How is it that this iconic figurehead developed into a whole new separate doctrine and religion? Isn't it easier to place the blame of our wrong-doings on someone else rather than admit our own frailties? It's Psychology 101 really. C'mon. Even a movie star gets it.

Religion can be interpreted as a form of rules or laws that function to keep actions and behaviors in check. The Ten Commandments are quite like ten various codes of law. If you break it, you go to jail, or in this case, Hell. And God would then be like the head of Interpol or the FBI; ever watchful, ready to apprehend anyone who pushes the boundaries of the law. The Bible makes Him out to be compassionate, loving, vigilant, clever, and ever patient. But why would someone who is often deemed the personication of Goodness act in the way that He does? Two things that I'll just briefly comment on.

In Genesis, Noah and the flood

I understand that the men of Earth were corrupt and wicked. Yet what God chose to do in combating this problem was to basically, kill all of them, save Noah. Does saving one good man justify the killing of many wicked men? The world was probably in shambles, yet couldn't God, being the almighty authoritative figure that He is, choose some other way to fix the situation? Understandably, you cannot force something upon someone who isn't receptive to change. Had God chose to force his word on the men, He would have probably failed. Yet, why the harsh act of mass genocide? Killing women and children (especially). Is it not pure hypocrisy to kill tons of people then create a commandment that forbids one from killing another? Comparing Adolf Hitler to God could possibly create a huge controversy. But is that not what Hitler did as well?

The need to test His follower's faith

Repeatedly in the Bible, God creates dilemmas for his believers in order to assure their undying and unquestioning faith to Him. Actions of a paranoid megalomaniac? The poor guy (I forgot his name) was deluded into thinking he had to sacrifice his son for God. The Book of Job. All these are examples of common folk being put to the test just to prove that their faith in God is unwavering. If God is all powerful and omnipotent, shouldn't He already have been assured of their trust in him? The United States of America come to mind. The USA has constantly put pressure on it's allies to prove their undeviating support. While this may all seem like an act of diplomacy, it could also be interpreted as a way to exhibit the supremacy of the USA. All-powerful, USA is widely regarded as the forefront example of the triumph of liberal capitalism and democracy. Not much unlike God and his actions?

It's not that we're hardcore jaded cynics and skeptics. We just want some kind of indication. I mean, who doesn't? Take a look at the state of the world. Poverty. The success of disco music in the 80s. Abortion. War. Killings. If God created man, why did He let his own creations go about killing themselves? As the ultimate creator, He surely could have 'saved' mankind. I read in an article that God in these times, is playing the role of the patient father. Instead of choosing to punish us, He is merely observing our growth in the hopes that someday we mature and we learn our lessons after much trial and error. It's all fine and dandy and explanatory but it would really make more sense if unicorns existed and Simple Plan didn't. Surely, any father would not just stand back and watch his child self-destruct without some sort of intervention?

It's easy to say that what the world needs is more faith. What if we put God aside and start claiming 100% responsibility for our own actions? Maybe when we finally accept that all the shit that is happening are the by-products of our actions, it's possible that things would run a lot more smoothly. A lot more efficiently.

Or at least the lines in Malaysia's public government offices will.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Because it's so much easier being the winner than the loser...

The scene of the crime : Central London 2005
Type of crime : 'Terrorist' attack
Perpetrators : Why.. Gee whiz. Who else could it possibly be but Muslim fundamentalists?

If Sept 11 will go down in history for anything, it'll be for creating a whole new awareness regarding Muslims in the western sphere of the globe. The gapping flaw in American internal security pre-2001 comes in a close second though. Of course, any prospective traveller or student can assure you that that problem has been rectified.

The unfortunate events that have unfolded in London over the last couple of days no doubt signifies the horrors of reality. Somehow these days, human lives are just expendable. Sad but true. Anyways, what sets this tragedy apart from the Bali bombings or other acts of terrorism, Ad and I think, is the external factors that lead up to the incident. Not making much sense? Keep going..

Prior to the attacks, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were gathered in Singapore to decide where the 2012 Games will be hosted at. (To the ignorant, China has got dibs on 2008). Recollecting from what I read but if memory serves, it was between five countries: Spain, Russia, London, France, New York. Suffice to say that when it came down to crunch time, the two countries on the line were London and France. In the end, London walked away the proud host(ess?) of the 2012 Games; a mere four votes ahead of France (54-50).

Cut to real time, not even 24 hours after the decision, the bombs go off in London. A serious case of really atrocious sportsmanship from the French? We're thinking, "Hell yeah!". See, if you think about it, all the other terrorist attacks happened unexpectedly. By that I mean, without much warning. It was just kinda random. Now this happening not even a day after the results of the IOC...

Does it smell kinda fishy in here or what?

Friday, July 01, 2005

Because it's like, duh! Omigod. It's, like such a publicity stunt...

Unless you've been living in Easter Island for the last six months or so (I tend to not have a lot of faith in news circulating around in a country that has only one ATM machine), there is very little chance in you missing out on the hot news of the hour.

Apparently Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise are "so in lurvvveeee". They've been basically going out for all of what 5 weeks, and suddenly they're engaged. Interesting. Did you hear about 'ol Mr Pitt and Miss Jolie as well? What with the whole hoo-ha the paparazzi were creating around the two, one would have thought that between the both of them Jesus had come around to being reborn on Earth again. Hmmm. Although maybe that would be featured more on 'Christianity Today' or something to that effect. Oh well.

What is with Hollywood? Time and time again, Hollywood and it's participants insists on insulting the our intelligence. We get it! In Hollywood, marriage isn't exactly a very sacred ideal. We swear if properly analyzed, studies will show that Hollywood is responsible for half the divorce, separation and annulment numbers in the world. Seriously. So you think we're a bunch, actually a pair of, cynical, unromantic fellas? Not really. We just happen to think that in Hollywood, the only true everlasting love that can possibly exist is between Sarah Jessica Parker and her Manalo Blahniks, as well as Kevin Federline, that's Mr Britney Spears to the ignorant, and his trucker caps. Yes, he displays a strange affinity to those ugly piece of clothing some might consider caps.

Take this for example. In Hollywood, staying in the spotlight usually equates to wild antics and controversial behavior. Say, Paris Hilton. That alone is enough said. Sadly, marriage life does not present the same opportunites. For example, Drew Barrymore. We occasionally see or read snippets of information regarding her in the press. But the frequency of her press sightings is usually drastically decreased during her marriage periods. Let's take her brief marriage with Tom Green (who is NOT related to Seth Green in any way). During the time they were married, hardly any news regarding the two emerged in the news. After they divorced, pictures of the newly single actress starts circulating around in tabloid magazines, especially after the release of Charlie Angels 2. Maybe some of you can't remember this far back. No problemo.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. And the whole fiasco with Jennifer Aniston. After 3 years +, the blonde couple parts ways with allegations of Brad having an affair with Jolie while shooting Mr and Mrs Smith. Naturally, the press plays it up; showing pictures of the two canoodling while another depicts the gaunt features of Aniston. Coincidentally enough, all the hype around 'Mr and Mrs Smith' causes the public to flock to the opening, thereby securing it a pretty hefty return in box-office tickets. The film opened at number one, raking in $50 million in a single weekend. Considering that this movie isn't exactly thick plot-wise, and the acting was merely sub-par, how weird is it that it managed to drum up that much amount of money? Hollywood executives first rule of money making: create interesting conflict, eg. love story = publicity generated = say hello to money! It's as easy as burping the alphabet!

Ahhh. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The current 'It' couple. Before all this, I swear I don't think I've ever seen Holmes in the limelight this much before. What a coincidence.. Batman Begins was coming out on June 15. And Cruise... War of the Worlds, anyone? Now if you think that love is possible between the two, read this interesting bit of info. As reported in The Malay Mail, Tom Cruise actually asked Jessica Alba if she wanted to 'date' him a couple of days before he and Katie Holmes blew up the front pages. Alba declined (I think you could already guess that much) and now we have Cruise-Holmes, the new love-child of Hollywood. How many ways can you say publicity stunt?

Last but not least, I can't possibly end this post without a jab at dear 'ol Paris Hilton. Who, for those who are out of the loop, is currently engaged to Paris Latsis. Some billionaire's son who's good eye candy. Paris and Paris. Sigh.. Marketing director's wet dream. P2P will have a whole new meaning once these two hits the marriage carpet.

Right. Give us a shot of reality please.

We're not that dumb.