Published by Priss on Apr 26, 2014
Category: Deep Thoughts,Hobbies,Lifestyle,Personal Thoughts,Philosophy

This is a story I have only told a few close friends over the years, a story that haunted me for most part of my life, of how twist of turns of events led me to stop dancing, and now of  trying to let go. For some of you, this might be just whining of a little girl, bad things happen – deal with it. But I must say that it isn’t easy for me to understand and forgive the people involved.

I love dancing. I started attending ballet classes since I was 3 years old, and finally when I was 5 years old, my parents enrolled me in the prestigious Sylvia McCully School of Dancing at Thomson Plaza. I didn’t make many friends in the years I was dancing there because I was always the youngest in class, tough talking to the older girls. Fast forward a few years later…

I was 14 years old, I have completed the Grade 5 ballet syllabus and was dancing in the adult class en pointe shoes with other adults that have completed the Grade 5 syllabus (for a while I was dancing in the same class as the actress Wong Li Lin!). One day, my friend said she wanted to join Dance club at my school, so I agreed to join the Beginners class with her – it didn’t matter to me, I had 2 other CCAs and I was doing this for fun. Soon after, I realized that the ballet teacher and the CCA teacher in-charge disliked me. We were auditioning for the school’s SYF competition and the ballet teacher tried hard to keep me in the Beginner’s dance class (for people with no dance background), even though I had already danced almost 10 years of my life by then (and probably one of the few students who could dance en pointe). I didn’t see a need to boast so I didn’t argue with them (like I said, it was for fun only). Luckily, Mr Zaki Ahmad, a well known cheorographer, was in-charge of selecting dancers for the SYF competition and so I was drafted into the official Dance club. I could never understand why the teachers disliked me, back then before I was a rebellious teenager, I didn’t give the teachers much problem. I concluded it was because I didn’t have the typical ballerina’s body shape and size. I was always the plump kid, not over-weight, just plump. I was dark skinned (from playing too many sports), plump, short, and loud.

Well, what happened a year later… the teacher in-charge of the Dance club CCA heard from one of the dance students that I played truant and skipped dance class and decided to kick me out of the CCA. The truth was, I was having bad menstrual cramps / heavy flow that day and decided not to attend dance, but instead go to Orchard Road to buy a journal book for my English assignment. Orchard Road is technically the closest shopping centre / area that is to my house, btw. The teacher refused to listen to my explanation, even when my mother came to school to help me appeal on my behalf, she refused.

So how about your other dance school, you might ask. By then, I was representing school in Track & Field, and I was in netball club, plus dance practice, I just didn’t had the time to attend my usual adult dance class for many months. I tried re-joining Sylvia McCully Dance school after that, but I just couldn’t seem to “get back in the groove” and I just wasn’t as motivated any more. It sounds like an excuse, I know. I really wished I tried harder at Sylvia McCully after that incident. So I gave up ballet.

Oh, how I miss dancing…


My dancing shoes for Salsa :P

I couldn’t stop dancing after all, and for the years after, I signed up for many dance classes – hiphop, international ballroom (chacha, rhumba, jive, samba) and salsa… but none of the other dances gave me that fulfilment like Ballet did. I was a dedicated Ballerina, but once I stopped, it was just too difficult for me to go back. For years, I hated my dance teacher at school, why didn’t they give me a chance??? But I guess, with this blog post, I am now trying to let those negative feelings go.

If you have a dream, fight for it. Don’t give up just because others try to stop you. And for the teachers out there, please always give your students a chance – you never know how much positive / negative impact you might have in their lives.



 
Published by Priss on Jan 10, 2014
Category: Deep Thoughts,Personal Thoughts

The voices in my head
Drowning me step by step
Step 1: you’re not her
Step 2: she’s not you
Step 3: you’re not him
Step 4: he’s not yours
Louder and louder
Progressively making its way
Into the core
Modify, save, closed
Repeat.



 
Published by Priss on Aug 17, 2013
Category: Deep Thoughts,Personal Thoughts,Social Issues

“Kansas City sports writer Martin Manley ended his life with a self-inflicted gunshot wound early Thursday morning, but thanks to a website that went live the same day, his motivations for doing so are sure to live on for years to come.”
Read more

The page http://martinmanleylifeanddeath.com was taken down but you can access it via this mirror website instead
http://martinmanleylifeanddeath.com.nyud.net/home_page

“Today is August 15, 2013. Today is my 60th birthday. Today is the last day of my life. Today, I committed suicide. Today, is the first day this site is active, but it will be here for years to come.”

I’ve not read the whole site yet, but it’s definitely going to be an interesting read. I’ve thought about my own death and I suspect I’m either gonna go by some freak accident or natural causes. I’m not sure which I prefer actually. But I don’t want to be living as an old person. No offence to old people. I can understand why Martin Manley did it, though I must say gunshot to the head sounds really messy.



 
Published by Priss on Apr 20, 2013
Category: Deep Thoughts,Personal Thoughts,Philosophy

I love Shakespeare’s works. I haven’t read many of them, and honestly, it’s difficult for casual reading… Anyhow, I stumbled upon this quote from Hamlet and really relate to it right now. There’s a time and place for everything ^^. I’ll insert the meaning of this quote at the bottom of the page :)

Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in’t;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damn’d and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

xxx
Interpretation from http://wiki.answers.com

Hamlet has worked himself up to a state of mind where he is ready to kill Claudius “Now I could drink hot blood!” He finds him and is about to kill him when he stops. Claudius is on his knees. He is apparently praying. Hamlet is afraid that this will make it easier for Claudius to get into heaven, unlike his father who is stuck in purgatory being killed “unshriven”. There is a weird mixture of Protestant and Catholic theologies here: the notion of Purgatory is definitely Catholic, but the idea that praying directly to God might get you absolution for your sins without the aid of a priest is clearly Protestant. Either way, Hamlet wants his revenge to extend into the next life, and so killing Claudius so that he can go to heaven in not good enough. He wants to get him while he is committing a sin of some kind so he’ll go straight to hell. He sheathes his sword, waiting for this kind of opportunity.



 
Published by Priss on Mar 04, 2013
Category: Deep Thoughts,Lifestyle,Singapore Affairs,Social Issues,Work Life

Life behind the glass windows
tic-tic-tic tap-tap-tap
Churning out words and numbers
That don’t really mean crap

Caught in the wheel of fortune
Creak-creak-crooks
Where men are obsessed
and lives are dancing around their chairs

Buildings cascading from the sky
Pitter-patter pitter-patter
The stress turns into cries
but naught clouds in sight

We’re drones stuck to our desks
…— — —…
Only allowed to speak what’s real
Where reality is just a pack of lies.

singapore skyline CBD black and white



 
Published by Priss on Jan 31, 2013
Category: Current Affairs,Deep Thoughts,Singapore Affairs,Social Issues

Singapore’s prime minister announced a few days ago that Singapore might be hitting 6.9 million population by 2030. You can download The Whitepaper on Population here from http://www.population.sg/

You can also read about it at Channelnewsasia. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1250894/1/.html

Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan said: “Hong Kong in terms of density is much higher, and we must never try to reach that area — whether in terms of household size, or in terms of crowdedness, or in terms of lacking in greenery and of course the other aspects of population, etc. I think we are far away from that and I think we have to keep it that way. I think whatever we do we are quite clear, keep quality of living high.”

However, if you take a look at this Wikipedia page, Singapore is listed 3rd highest population density in the world, above Hong Kong, which is currently at 4th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

If you haven’t been to Hong Kong or you know nothing about Hong Kong, well I can tell you that its crowded EVERYWHERE. Take a look at the public housing conditions in Hong Kong (100 sq ft flats!)

Singapore is my home. I’m a first generation Singaporean from Hong Kong, my family migrated here when I was very young. My parents believed that Singapore was an ideal place for a family, with beautiful greenery and nature, world class education, stable government etc. I used to believe that too.

I’d like to be clear that I love Singapore. We want to blog and discuss about these topics because it means so much to us. We want Singapore to be a happy place for Singaporeans, a place we can be proud of which we call Home. It is definitely not because I’m anti-PAP or that I enjoy complaining about Singapore. I just hope that our country will not follow the path of many dysfunctional first world countries.

You can see more of such flats here: http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/michael-wolf-10.php

For once, Singapore should not aim to be Number 1, please don’t let us become the world’s most dense country.



 
Published by Priss on Jan 23, 2013
Category: Current Affairs,Deep Thoughts,Singapore Affairs,Social Issues

I feel that the church should not attempt to influence government policies unless such policies removes their rights to be Christians. Just as I wouldn’t stand for any government controlling the religious freedom of people, so as long as those religious practices does not affect the rest of the population. Doesn’t that sound fair? Isn’t that how a democracy suppose to work?

A couple of years back, a group of Christian ladies decided to take over a not for profit organization for women support – the AWARE scandal. It was disgusting how they used underhanded methods to over take a social service agency for their own agenda. Yucks. Then a couple of weeks back, Pastor Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church posted a Facebook comment on his support for the criminalization of homosexuals.

Background on Pastor Khong and 377a:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/growing-debate-online-over-repeal-of-section-377a–095505691.html

https://www.facebook.com/notes/lawrence-khong-fcbc/sp-lawrence-khongs-statement-at-esm-goh-chok-tongs-visit-to-tc/504436446267141

It really troubles me when other Christians replied to his call to “battle” homosexuality, and they chorus after him “Yes, we need to keep 377a”.

As some have pointed out, the Bible lists many other sins besides homosexuality, why aren’t they championing for the government to ban abortions or divorce or adultery? After all, the bible says that these are sins too.

Picture take from The Examiner

I came across this post on Facebook by a 24 year old gay Christian, Joel Joshua Gunawan, on his stand on religion and his sexuality. I find his views interesting, touching, and logical. I wish more people can be more tolerant and love those that they find difficult to. After all, it is easy to love the people close, but to love your “enemies” or people that disagree with you…. Well, that is something we have to strive to do.

From: http://www.facebook.com/notes/joel-joshua-gunawan/on-being-gay-and-christian/10151666786854676

On Being Gay and Christian

Plato often chides me in a soft voice, saying, “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle”. But it so hard, sir. Perhaps to be kind is the hardest battle that I fight.

And often who is it hardest to be kind to, but oneself? Being both gay and Christian – often portrayed as the two opposing sides of an epic war – tears me apart. I wish I could choose one or the other, but the unkindness I do to myself is to choose the honesty that I cannot renounce either.

Being Gay and Christian

Growing up in an ordinary, loving, Christian family, there was hardly anything wrong with my childhood. It was a normal and blissful upbringing. My parents were always present, always loving towards each other and to me (and still are), I was brought up according to good Christian morals, and there was little want in the house. There was absolutely no gay figure in my childhood to influence me. Still, somehow, I turned out gay.

I noticed my sexual preference for boys even from kindergarten, an astonishingly young age, I know. When I was 9 or 10, a school teacher mentioned the word “gay” after watching me and a classmate horsing around, as boys do. I quickly connected the dots, and still remember praying for God to take such inclinations away from me. I am 24 now, and have never stopped praying for that. I remember praying so hard, so earnestly in that childlike faith. Every birthday, as I was asked to make a wish/prayer at the birthday cake, I would ask for only one thing – that God would take this away from me. I would sit alone in my bed on so many nights and cry to myself, thinking about the kind of life I have ahead of me, begging not to be sent to hell. I felt so filthy, so debauched, simply because I had those feelings. I was only a child. No 10 year old should have had to feel that way – so lost, so afraid, so confused, so alone. But such things happen in a fallen world.

I eventually came out to my parents at the age of 15. They were shocked and thought I was too young to be sure, but by then I had already thought so hard about it for years. I’d tried so hard to change – if I could have, I would have. I figured I should tell them while I was still young and (relatively) lovable, rather than wait until I was an adult man. Before coming out to them, I spent days on the internet reading stories of people who came out to their parents, many of whom were thrown out of their homes. I still remember the fear I had in my heart when I finally told them in tears. Thankfully, they responded in love and, even though they understandably still hold on to their Christian beliefs against homosexuality, they have never made me feel less for it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many other people who have faced rejection from the one place they needed acceptance most.

And I tried to change – heck, of course I did. And this is something which really irks me – I often hear Christians flippantly say that gays can change their sexuality, and that it is just a matter of choice. I do not claim to know for sure whether people are born gay, and whether they can change. What I know for sure is that for as far as I can remember, I have tried as hard as I can to not be gay.

Who on earth would choose to be gay (and how do you do that anyway)? Gays are taunted, bullied, condemned, and rejected. Often, they have rejected themselves, hating themselves, many to the point of death. We have been rejected by society, by friends, by family, even by fellow homosexuals in such a very cruel circle. We have had to suppress everything within us, we have learnt to be ashamed of how we are so naturally inclined, we have been taught that we are less. We have spent countless nights unable to sleep, lying in bed, thinking about what a lonesome life we have predestined ahead of us. We have stared at straight couples, envied their freedom to love, devastated at the realization that we will never enjoy the blessing of simply being “normal”, to found a “normal” family, to eventually have grandchildren of our own in our old age.

And that is what we have always wanted – just to be normal. We have tried our best to be normal according to the standards of this world, but we just cannot. Heck, why can’t you understand that? And since we cannot be normal in that way, I think it only understandable that we strive to be accepted as normal just the way we are. We simply want to be like that boy and girl in the street, accepted, assimilated, loved and loving another. We simply want to be human.

And how much worse being gay and Christian, to know that you will never be able to love someone without being plagued by a deep sense of guilt for your entire life, knowing that the only reciprocal love you are capable of is one that God disapproves of. How I wish it were only a problem I could debate about and then wave away, as so many people do. There is absolutely nothing to gain from choosing to be gay. Why on earth would anyone say, hey, maybe I’ll try to be sexually attracted to men for a bit and see how exciting that may be. That’s ridiculous. I and millions of others would have made such a switch by now. Perhaps there might be a way to change – I do not know. But what I do know is that I have tried all my life, and if it is THAT difficult to change, then there certainly is something to be said about that sort of “choice”.

Theology and homosexuality

I have no issue with Christians maintaining a doctrine condemning homosexuality – the Bible seems to propose that. What I have a problem with is ignorance – both with regards to homosexuality, and with theology.

Firstly, on homosexuality. Christians display an astonishing lack of understanding concerning homosexuality – even while condemning it passionately. As described earlier, the fact that so many Christians flippantly insist that being gay is a mere choice angers me. It trivializes this massive wrestle I have had all my life with this thorn in the flesh – and not just mine, but the struggle of millions of other homosexuals who have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried to change.

It further angers me that Christians often speak of homosexuals as some sort of tiny deviant group who have chosen to be morally corrupt, like people who choose to dabble in witchcraft, for example. These Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that there are far more homosexuals in the world than they care to admit or realise. Estimates have ranged from 10%-20% of any general population, and that means there could be as many as half to one million gay people in Singapore. Or, closer to home, around 1000 homosexuals in a megachurch with a congregation of 10,000.

We are your sons and your daughters, your brothers and your sisters – often, we choose not to speak about our sexuality precisely because of this conscientious ignorance in the Church. For many of us, being gay is one of the biggest struggles of our lives, but we would rather not talk about it because of such an appalling lack of understanding towards homosexuality, and worse, a lack of interest to actually understand.

We have already experienced rejection in so many forms throughout our lives, so most of us would rather choose to pretend that the problem does not exist than to expose ourselves to the potential barrage of ignorant condemnation, whether well-meaning or not. We happen to have sexual attraction towards the “wrong” gender, and try as we might, we can’t seem to get rid of that. Whether that is right or wrong is one matter – the fact is, your choice to ignorantly treat homosexuals as a tiny minority who have chosen on volition to adopt some sort of niche abomination is an error that you need to correct. When people passionately fight against something they display such an immense lack of understanding towards, that fight is flawed from the start. When people claim to love someone, yet choose to be spectacularly ignorant and flippant about his struggles, it is difficult to trust the value of that sort of “love”.

Secondly, you also display a glaring lack of understanding towards Christian theology itself. Sure, many non-Christians have been misquoting the Bible without understanding it, for instance citing Old Testament dietary laws and symbolic prohibitions to mock the Law without understanding that the Doctrine of Supercession has rendered those laws dead. But that ought not be a mistake for you to make, you who purport to be lovers of the Word. For example, how many “religious” Christians I have met insist that mere homosexualtemptations are sin. I only wish they would understand what they are saying before speaking with such certainty about things they know so little about. The fact that so many of you continue to speak in an authoratative voice on a matter you evidently know too little about puts even Christian homosexuals off, much less homosexuals who (understandably) have an aversion towards Christianity to begin with. If you have a solution, tell us because most of us want to know. But if all that you have to say is “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” or “I support the traditional family model!” (so do I) or “gay rights will destroy the family!” (how?), then you are continuing to mumble to yourself.

I will not claim to have an conclusive answer concerning the correctness/wrongness of homosexuality. However, I put it to you that although I once thought the matter was fixed, I’m now persuaded otherwise. I used to strongly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, never once condoning it, even in spite of my own personal struggles, since Truth does not change according to my personal preferences. Difficult as it is, I was, and still am, prepared to accept that.

However, the more I read the Bible and ask the difficult but critical questions, the more I come to see that the matter may be far from settled. The debate is out there in public, done to death, and I shall not attempt to replicate it, but suffice to summarize my current thoughts thus:

1. The Old Testament with its old laws have been superceded by the New Testament, Jesus being the High Priest of the New Covenant (see particularly, Hebrews 7-8).
2. The New Covenant is NOT synonymous with the New Testament (as I used to believe so myself). In the New Testament, we see the development of the New Covenant, and that is evident in the changing rules ranging from the Gospels (where Jesus said that “not one yod or tittle will disappear from the Law” and “whoever breaks the smallest of the Law and teaches others to do the same will be better off drowning himself” (Matthew 5:18-19)), to the Acts of the Apostles (where the apostles slowly adapted the dietary/customary rules of the Church to this New Covenant), to the epistles of Paul and the book of Hebrews which expound on the New Covenant.
3. So the exact parameters of this “New Covenant” is quite an uncertain matter. The Bible does not say “and these are the contents of the New Covenant: …”. The Church all through history and around the world has been debating it. Is it ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols? (see Acts 15:29, but see 1 Corinthians 10:28 which says that it is not, in itself, morally wrong) Is it ok for women to speak in church? (1 Corinthians 14:34 – which is not merely symbolic or cultural, but is crucially theological, the basis being that “it was woman who first sinned”: see 1 Timothy 2:12-15) Is it ok for women to wear jewellery? (1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3) If the 10 Commandment is the core of the law we should observe, then why do we not observe the Sabbath which is, by definition, Saturday?
4. Thus I think it is possible to see that the question of homosexuality is far from unanimously settled. I put it to you that the rules of the New Covenant are not “laws” to be followed to the letter, but analogies for our conscience. Paul wrote: “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial; all things are permissible for me, but not all things are constructive” (1 Corinthians 10:23). Just as dietary laws and laws prohibiting one from wearing certain materials have been understood to be merely analogous to deeper theological matters, so too the laws on gender. After all, gender really is but a temporary construct, and in Christ there is ultimately no male or female (Galatians 3:28). I am not saying that we should therefore descend into lawlessness – no, my point is that the law should serve a practical purpose, and symbolic laws should be understood that way, and ultimately it is our conscience which matters most. Just as we observe the Sabbath not strictly from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, but understand in it the principle of Rest, so too we can observe the law on marriage as one of love, commitment, and monogamy, rather than that of strict gender.
5. Of course that is all rather debatable, and I do not claim monopoly on understanding. All I wish to show here is that “the Bible says so!” is not necessarily a conclusive statement in the debate, and a Christian who truly reads the Bible will fear to say such a thing. I don’t know for sure what the Biblereally means, and perhaps I might be accused of trying to fit it to my interpretation. I don’t know. But what I do know is that unlike most of you, this is my life and not a mere point of argument. And to reconcile everything is a need for me, not a mere interest or passion.

Legislating against homosexuality

But let us ASSUME that the Bible does unequivocally condemn homosexuality. I would want to work to change my own lifestyle. In fact, I have been trying to do that all my life because despite my sexuality, 24 years of growing up in church have shown me the reality of God in ways I cannot explain away. I have seen friends healed miraculously, lives changed, and the work of God in my life and family in ways I cannot explain apart from the power of Christ. I wish I could explain them all away as mere coincidence or conspiracy as many do – I want to! – but I cannot lie to myself. In my heart of heart, I know that the Christian God is real, and I am willing to try to give up my lifestyle, even if I doubt my own strength to.

However, most of the gay community do not subscribe to Christianity. While I defend the Church’s right to proselytise and maintain its stand on homosexuality, I cannot defend its attempt to legislate against it. Do not get me wrong – as citizens of this nation, I completely support your right to do so. I reject the silly notion that “Separation of Church and State” means that politics must necessarily be informed by ONLY secular voices. After all, all opinions are informed by worldviews and philosophies, whether involving a deity or not. To insist that only those views involving none should be allowed to be aired in public discourse is contrary to the notion of secular. Indeed, as a secular multi-religious nation, secularism and religion are not incompatible – it simply means that people are not judged according to their religion or lack thereof. Just because a person’s opinion is founded in a particular religion does not disqualify it from being used to influence public policy.

However, while I defend your right to influence legislation against homosexuality, I disagree with it. After all, what benefit does it do, apart from creating even more animosity than already exists between the Church and homosexuals? Generally, gay people HATE Christianity. Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes consensual private sexual activity – what does that do for your cause? People are going to be gay regardless, and they are going to continue being so, even if they try their best not to be. What is criminalization going to change? Calling me a criminal is not going to make me love and marry a woman. Heck, I WANT to do it, even without 377A, but what prevents me from doing so is not something that can be changed by the law. And if your reason for criminalising homosexuality is that it is a moral wrong which harms the “traditional family unit”, then what is your excuse for not advocating the criminalisation of adultery and divorce too?

If the reason you call for 377A to be retained is your fear that gay rights may someday progress to the point where you might be prosecuted for condemning homosexuality, then shame on you! To protect YOURSELF from a possible future injustice, you are calling for injustices on others as a preventive measure. How selfish can that be? If you fear the eventual injustice that your freedom of expression may someday be infringed, then fight THAT injustice when it comes instead of placing a separate injustice on your fellow man. Moreover, if you are Christians as you so claim, “imitators of Christ”, then remember that Christ was willing to bear the Cross and every injustice He suffered in His ministry, like a sheep silent before its shearers (Isaiah 53:7). More than that, He has called you to do the same (Matthew 5:11). It does not mean that you become fools and let the world take advantage of you, but it does mean that your “righteous” causes should not be used to justify and disguise your desire for self-preservation.

Furthermore, homosexuality is but a small sin in Christianity. All such sins are ultimately forgivable, but there is one unpardonable sin – that of idolatry. In other words, the sin of idol-worship and beliefs in other gods (or none) is the biggest sin in Christianity. Yet Christians do not insist that all non-Christians be legally prohibited from doing so. We do not pray for Islam or Buddhism to be made illegal. While we profess and stand by the fact that idolatry is wrong and will lead to eternal damnation, we respect the God-given freedom that each man and woman has to make choices for themselves. While we assume the responsibility to “be the salt and light of the world” (Matthew 5:13) and to “teach the nations to obey” (Matthew 28:18) God, we recognise that teaching does not consist of, or involve, forcing. That is why Christians support religious freedom which, historically, had its origins in the Protestant Reformation itself. Why, then, must it be different for homosexuality?

Jesus never condoned sin. He never compromised on His beliefs on morality which were clear to all who knew Him as a Jewish teacher – and He frequently taught on those topics. The difference between Jesus and (many) Christians lies in their approach.

This is how Jesus treated the prostitute: He looked at her, and without condemnation, said “Your sins are forgiven. Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7.48-50). This is how Jesus treated the adulteress caught in the very act of adultery (imagine that): He defended her from her prosecutors by saying to them “let he without sin cast the first stone”, then turned to her and said, “I don’t condemn you. Just leave your life of sin.” (John 1.8-11). This is how Jesus treated those who chose not to believe in Him: to the young rich man who could not bring himself to change his lifestyle, Jesus spoke with and tried to persuade him, but ultimately respected his choice and his freewill, and let him go his way (Matthew 19.16-22). Compare that to how Christians treat homosexuals and those who make un-Christian choices today. Would Jesus have advocated for a law to criminalise homosexuality? I highly doubt it.

Jesus said He did not come to condemn sinners but to save them (John 3.17). And this is what He had to say to the chief priest of His day and the religious people who were so conformed to what they have been taught by men, who were so stuck in their personal prejudices and self-righteousness that they missed the whole point: “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you (Matthew 21.32)”.

So what am I writing all of this for? First, I just hope that Christians will seek to understand homosexuality before passing judgement of whatever kind on gay people. If we need anything, it is understanding, support, and love – not rejection, which we have faced all of our lives from every side. Second, I hope that Christians will seek to understand the Bible and what it says (and does not say) about homosexuality (and everything else) before using Bible quotes out of context and without qualification. Thirdly, I hope that non-Christians will be more understanding towards Christians as well. We all have a worldview (whether religious or secular), and Christians have every right to express their genuine beliefs, AND to use them to inform their stand on public policy, just as you have the right to use your non-religious beliefs to inform how the law should change. Debate, then, not mock. And think before you click that “like” button.

At the end of the day we are all human, wrestling with our own struggles daily, whether gay or Christian, both or neither. Most of us just want to be human without malice, and can do with as much support and love as we can get, not condemnation – whether of our persons, our religious beliefs, or our lifestyles.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a battle called “life” to fight today.



 
Published by Priss on Jan 22, 2013
Category: Deep Thoughts,Friends,Personal Thoughts,Philosophy

Sab and I had some fights few months back, but we’re back together and more loving than ever <3 Thanks for concerned people that asked :)

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so the very fact that we're alive and together again means our friendship has gotten even stronger. The beautiful thing about my friends is: we might bitch about each other and get pissed off.... but at the end of the day, we always kissed and made up. We are able to let go of certain unhappiness and move on because we know that we still care for each other. I'm proud to say that I am really lucky to have build such strong and lasting friendships with Sab and a handful of others (that are not named because they are more private people). :)

priss and sab

priss and sab

priss and sab

priss and sab

priss and sab

Nothing and no one shall come between us. :)



 
Published by Priss on Jun 06, 2012
Category: Current Affairs,Deep Thoughts

The original analytic piece was written in Chinese, speculating what could the painter, Toronto-based Chinese painter Liu Yi (刘溢), meant when he drew this painting “2008 Beijing”. The drawing speculates the relationships between USA, Russia, China, Japan and Taiwan, in which the conclusion is – can USA really win in a Chinese game? Then again it’s true, I don’t have any Caucasian friends that plays mahjong.

Playing With The Rules Of A Chinese Game. Right in front, the Asian lady with a tattoo on her back is China. On the left, the lady full of concentration is Japan. Dressed at the top looking sideways is USA. Lying rather seductively is Russia. The little girl standing by the side is Taiwan.

China “tripled” the Dong tiles (East Winds, this is a double up). This means that China has arisen with the circumstances (the winds); maybe that is the display of the “East Wind” missiles she possesses now. It looks like China is doing ok, but there is no clue about the other cards (tiles). Meanwhile she is up to no good under the table.

USA, appearing confident, is looking at Taiwan with an expression; perhaps to read from the look of Taiwan or to send some message.

Russia may appear indifferent but it is far from that. One leg is on USA and one hand is passing card(s) to China. They are some discreet exchanges going on.

Japan has all eyes on the cards, unaware of what others are doing.

Taiwan wears a red abdominal vest, maybe implying she is the last successor of the Chinese culture. She holds a tray of fruits in one hand and a fruit knife in the other, looking quietly at China with resentment. But she has no option. She is not in the game (a little girl too young to play the game?).

Dark clouds hang over the river outside the window implying tension over the straits separating Main Land China and Taiwan. The portrait on the wall is interesting, mustache of Sun Yet Sun, the bare head of Chiang Kai Set, the face of Mao Tze Tong… How the 4 ladies are dressed is also very interesting.

China bares her top, with panties and a skirt.
USA is almost fully dressed but bares her bottom.
Russia is left with only panties.
Japan naked.
These perhaps reflect the status of each nation;

The attire of USA appears to be most complete, probably because she is still the most powerful. Others are short of something here and there. Though USA is most presentable, she has nevertheless exposed her bottom (line). China and Russia look naked but keep their private parts are covered.

We assume this is a stripping game where the loser removes a piece of clothing. In this game, if China loses, she will be like Russia today… (broken up). If USA loses, she will also be like Russia… If Russia loses again, then she has nothing left… And Japan is already left with nothing….

Russia may appear to have drawn an extra tile (by the rule of the game, she cannot complete the game i.e. cannot win) and is hanging on for nothing … BUT she is actually exchanging tiles with China… The other person hanging on is Japan since she has no more “chips”. She is out of the game if she loses.

In conclusion:

USA is pretending. She looks most glorious but faces great dangers. If she loses this game, she loses her dominating position.

Russia has a leg each on a boat, most sly … Her situation is a little like China after liberation (when the communist took over China), sometimes with the USSR and sometimes with USA. Due to her lack of self sufficiency, she has to yo-yo between two parties for survival and room of development.

China has many tiles but they are not in view. Does that imply China keeps her strengths under wrap? And she is exchanging tiles with Russia under the table.

USA can only guess from the expression of Taiwan what may be happening between China and Russia.

Japan looks ignorant as she continues to focus on her cards.

China’s hand (of tiles) is most unpredictable.

Poor Japan … there are so many things happening around her. She has no chance of a win and she is out the moment she loses.

Taiwan keeps watch as a bystander. She sees all that transpired in the game and she understands. But she is not qualified to, nor capable of participating in the game. She has no right to speak. She is full of grievances and is utterly helpless. She can only be the maid, offering fruits to the winner(s).

The winner should be a pick between China or USA , there is little doubt about this. Then again if you notice, they are playing Chinese Mahjong, not Western Poker.

Playing with the rules of a Chinese game, what are the odds for USA?

Taken from : www.wuliaoo.com/2008-beijing.html



 
Published by Priss on Apr 04, 2012
Category: Deep Thoughts,Philosophy

What is love?

Is love that warm, fuzzy feeling you feel when two hands touch… Is love burning passion that sears through your very being and sometimes burning a hole through your heart… Or is love just the engagement between two individuals in accordance to societal rules…

It is easy for me to fall for someone, anyone, then in that case how can the feeling be called love.

Then true love must be a myth… It must be just the reactions of various chemicals in your head, that produce that warm fuzzy feeling, that burning passion, that need for following cordial rules for mutual benefits.

Or is it..

I’ve lived through more than a quarter of a century now… I still haven’t figured it out. Thinking about this just gets depressing, for I am afraid I will never find the answer, and never have known true love….