Thinkativity :

I love the contestants in Britain's Got Talent this year. But I really hope either Andrew Johnston or George Sampson win the competition. Better still if they both could get to win the competition, because they both deserve to win. Alas, there can only be one winner.

Posted by SK at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why? Why both the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition? Does it not seem plainly clear that one source - the Holy Scripture alone - is sufficient in matters of faith and morals? Why the need for Tradition? Is Tradition not merely, after all, man-made? Are the Holy Scriptures not the only word from God that has been bequeathed to us for our salvation?

Prima facie - on the face of it - this argument seems right.

But as history has pointed out unambiguously...

...theology that is not in service to "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) will, in time, turn against the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ideas that are not held accountable to "the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) will, in time, become the enemy of that truth.

For the same reason, the sola scriptura principle, as we know from sad experience, is "so protean and subject to variation that it results either in gutting the tradition or in creating new traditions around which further schisms are formed".

Hence the non-negotiable necessity for both Scripture and Tradition, both mirroring each other. Scripture constitutes the teachings of the Holy Apostles transmitted through documentation, and Tradition constitutes the teachings of the Holy Apostles transmitted orally; both preserved by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

[ A reflection of my reading from Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth, p.58. ]

Posted by SK at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You may feel confined here, but this is far freer a cage than the one they'd put you in.

Noah Bennet,
Heroes Season 2, Episode 2

Posted by SK at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the past two days, I've learned some very important lessons from a certain bishop of a certain major Protestant denomination through a personal conversation with him:

Justice is absolutely important; it is second only to saving your own arse.

Upholding truth is a non-negotiable; as long as it doesn't involve too much energy, time, and money.

Opinion is more important than concrete evidence; especially if you're a bishop and it involves your opinion.

Wise words from a wise man. Thank the Lord for such Christian leadership.

By the way, you should listen to this bishop when he preaches about justice. His tone of conviction almost convinces you that he truly believes in what he preaches.

For now, I'd rather not say anything about corrupt judiciaries and national leadership - the plank is in our own eye.

Posted by SK at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

When the story told seems to have happened all too long ago, we forget. We forget how we fit into that story and how we are somehow heirs – continuations – of that story which has now been relegated to the realm of legend. One day, the legend will become myth. And soon enough after that, it will be heard of no more.

As with all things that decay, so does our memory and our sense of being. If it is untrue that these things decay, it is at least true that they constantly threaten to decay. Our memories of these stories told long ago are what give us strength for today and hope for tomorrow. When we forget, these memories diminish together with strength and hope, hence the onslaught of despair and the reign of terror and fear.

The truth is, we were once Kings and Queens of the Land. But over time, we forgot how to be the Kings and Queens we were designated to be. And over time, we even forgot that we were in fact Kings and Queens. And because we had forgotten, we acted like savages who roamed the land, seeking to exploit all we could dominate and demean.

We even forget how to treat our fellow Kings and Queens, allowing our fallen bestial natures to engage in strife and rivalry over matter that once could have been shared by us all. The cry for power and dominance corrupts our land, which was once Our Land. And the land is infested by a race called “we”, who were once called “We”.

The Lion must return. For when he returns, we will remember. And when we remember, We will once again rule Our Land. He must return, and he must roar, so that we will remember.

Posted by SK at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If one day you discovered that your faith which you had held for some twenty years was misplaced, would you disown it? If you found another faith which you realised was the right one, would you embrace it?

I realise that most people wouldn’t.

Because for many, faith is as much an issue of social status, reputation, familiarity, and security as it is an issue of truth conviction, if not more so! For most people, the fear of discovering truth beyond their ground of familiarity stems from the fear that if they discovered something beyond that which constituted “truth” to them, their allegiance would have to be shifted. Mentally, emotionally, and dispositionally, they avoid such possibility at all cost.

For others, even if the discovery of “new truth” should take place, it does not necessarily lead to a conversion of heart and a redirection of action. Their discovery of new “new truth” rests at the level of casual acquaintanceship. For such, the usual cycle of relative justification emerges: “Just because you act upon a conviction, it does not necessarily mean that I must act upon mine”. Basically, the development of a new belief for them does not necessarily lead to a conviction to act. Clearly, overriding that faith conviction is an even greater conviction that the present stability and sense of security are to be guarded above all else.

So if you discovered that your faith has been misplaced all this while, would you abandon it at the risk of losing your friends, your family, your job, and all sorts of securities that allow you to sleep restfully in the night (knowing that the next day those securities will still be there)? And if you discovered another faith that was true to you, would you embrace it at the risk of provoking social disfavour and suffering financial, relational, and positional insecurity?

I admire those who would and who have. I have deep respect for those who have left their Christian faith to become Muslim, those who have left their Muslim faith to become Catholic, those who have left their Christian faith to become Buddhist, and those who from being religious people have decided to abandon the idea of faith all together, and others alike. They are people who understand the worth of a conviction.

But the vast majority of “believers” are simply casually religious people, flirting with truth.

Posted by SK at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

These past decades has seen an uprising in dissent from the Christian academia – particularly Catholic institutions. Well, okay, that’s not exactly true – dissent has always been present in the academia throughout the history of the Church.

But it has become a rather critical moment for the existence and sustenance of such Catholic academic institutions. Academicians in such institutions claim that when dissent is prohibited and freedom of intellectual inquiry is curtailed, it places the institutions at a great disadvantage in terms of their academic competence and competitiveness. This would consequently affect student intake and funding. Thus, the eventual existence of entire academic institutions is jeapordised.

It does not of course mean that variances from official ecclesiastical positions are not inherently present in Protestant-based academic institutions. It is just that in such circles, there has never been a Magisterium to speak of, hence no censure and no licensing of religious teachers. If an academic scholar was dismissed in a more confessional Protestant setting, he would probably not have a problem finding another tenured position in a less confessional environment. But this is not the case with the Catholic setting, wherein teachers imparting knowledge pertaining to faith and morals are licensed by the Vatican to teach. Where their teachings clearly do not echo the Church Magisterium and such dissent bears considerable gravitational consequence, their licences are revoked.

The Vatican has been vigilant in silencing such dissent, an exercise which some claim is in part a successfully imposed exercise because of Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and who sits on the Chair of the Apostle Peter as Pope Benedict XVI today. The likes of Hans Küng, Charles E. Curran and Leonardo Boff have tasted, in no small measure, the medicinal treatment of Ratzinger’s inquisition.

So is disproportionate dissent to be permitted? If not, how would the Church be able to sustain the relevant existence of such academic institutions subject to curial inquiry?

In the final analysis, it really is a matter of priority of relevance. It is not an issue of relevance per se, but rather, deciding on what priorities are relevant for the consideration of the Church as the guardian of truth.

The rationale of the Church for such a jealous guardianship over the teachings pertaining to faith and morals stems from the understanding that faith informs reason, and not vice versa. Reason can never be the arbiter of truth, and neither can it exist apart from the truth claims of the faith.

Whilst the idea of the kerygmatic prerogative of the Church may come across as condescending to academic inquirers, Christian academia is called to retain its memory that our epistemological advancements begin with the point of divine revelation rather than vain human ability or capacity. On this point, the Church cannot allow for the Christian academia to gravitate towards that which has now become a thoroughly secular endeavour – and a highly exalted one at that.

Hence, the bidding abides for Christian thinkers to think, feel, and act with the Church. For those without a Magisterium, be thankful that you're liberated to liberalise – but remember that what you say is not necessarily good for the eternal glory of the Church.

Posted by SK at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Many people are quick to express disagreements about issues, doctrines, and opinions. The fact is, many don’t understand enough to have the right to agree or disagree. But still, they’re quick to assert the personal right to do so.

When we disagree simply because we do not understand enough – yet foolishly think that we already do – it’s a sheer manifestation of folly and self-deceit.

Of course, this inevitably brings in the question of dialogue. The initial phase of dialogue always involves listening and a search to understand a position with which we’re unfamiliar. More than that, we need to give ourselves the mental and emotional space to come to terms with the reality that such contrasting positions actually do exist, and that these positions form the moral and religious convictions of our neighbours. For as long as we still find ourselves in a state of shock, space must be created for our personal acceptance (not necessarily agreement!) of our neighbours’ positions.

When we are calm and rational, and are conscientiously sure that we have tried our utter best to understand the inner workings of our neighbours’ convictions, then we can begin formulating our agreements and disagreements, providing reasons for our positions.

In the process, we will also inevitably discover that convictions are not cold beliefs; they don’t exist in a vacuum. The believer with a conviction is a person with a personality, feelings, and a mind. He is respectable and worthy of dignity inasmuch as we ourselves are, regardless of what his beliefs may be. He is a child of the universe, like we are. Like us, he too is a believer – we just believe in different things. Even the skeptic is a believer in something.

Seek first to understand before jumping to conclusions of agreement or otherwise. Jumping to conclusions is jumping the gun. The next time we catch ourselves being too quick to express agreement or disagreement, be even quicker to ask ourselves, “Do I truly agree/disagree, or am I just exhibiting ignorant folly in thinking that I already know?”

Posted by SK at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 1:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Would it sound overly triumphant if I advanced the claim that I’m now experiencing what seems to be the most enjoyable stage of my theological journey so far?

I’m learning new forms of theological articulation, discovering new categories and deciphering how my existing scheme fits into the ever-expanding matrix, and in the process, witnessing an influx of new categories that I’d previously never even heard of before. And yes, I’m thinking to myself, “Which part of the planet have I been stuck in before this?”

It seems as though I have just entered a whole new world of discovery. At the same time, it’s not a world entirely unfamiliar to me. There are things that strongly resonate with what I’ve known before, so the sense of continuity resounds. But more than that, there are also things that are really mind-blowing in the light of the paradigm from which I have emerged.

Now it seems like the paradigm I have recently emerged from is at least thirty years backward. It was a world wherein people articulated things as if those were entirely brand new discoveries, when it had actually escaped their realisation that others had already spoken about those very things for decades and have now moved far beyond that.

Oh the folly of thinking that we already know all there is to know. The folly of thinking that our little fossilised little frameworks already contain all there is to know, and the ignorant insecurity of protectionism reflected in the way we guard our fragile little schemas.

But you know, inasmuch as it might sound judgemental to say this, the reality is that some people will always remain where they are. They will always remain happy being in static intellectual existence; they remain happy there because that’s where they get to persist in their delusions of already having known all there is to be known.

Posted by SK at 4:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Excerpt from the Star Online:

KUANTAN: Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob has given a tip on how one can climb up the political and corporate ladders - by apple polishing (bodek).

``If I did not `bodek' (apple polish), I would not be where I am now - a Mentri Besar.

Gosh.

Posted by SK at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Knowledge must never be imparted out of insecurity or anxiety.

When knowledge is imparted out of insecurity, it causes one to project one’s self as the subject of knowledge. It makes one flaunt himself as the person who knows it all, while others are subtly implied to know nothing of equal value. In the thick of such insecurity, only the knower’s field of knowledge and realm of discourse are of vital consequence. Such a man knows nothing except his own loftiness.

When knowledge is imparted out of an anxiety that others might not know enough, it causes one to impose onto others the obligation to know as much as the knower does. It does not take into account the different capacities and efficiencies of people to absorb knowledge. Such a manner of imparting knowledge makes people into objects of information; it demeans the human spirit and belittles the learner.

Knowledge, when imparted properly and in the right spirit, liberates the learner. It proceeds from the mind and enters the realm of the heart, transforming itself into life wisdom. It gives the knower a love of wisdom and a desire to acquire even greater and deeper wisdom.

Knowledge is good. But imparting something good is an intricate skill; because when not imparted in its rightful way, even something as good as knowledge can kill the human spirit.

Posted by SK at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

London, May. 7, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican's top ecumenical spokesman has posed a challenge to Anglican leaders, saying that the Anglican communion must decide whether it has more in common with the Catholic and Orthodox churches or the Protestant denominations.

[ Read more ]

Posted by SK at 12:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ah Beng bought a new mobile.He sent a message to everyone from his phone book and said, "My mobile number has changed. Earlier it was Nokia 3310. Now it is 6610".
_________________________________________________

AH BENG: I am proud, cos my son is in medical college.
FRIEND: Really, what is he studying?
AH BENG: No, he is not studying, they are studying him.
_________________________________________________

AH BENG: Doctor, in my dreams, I play football every night.
DOCTOR: Take this tablet, you will be okay.
AH BENG: Can I take it tomorrow? Tonight is the final game.
_________________________________________________

AH BENG: If I die, will u remarry?
WIFE: No! I'll stay with my sister. But if I die will u remarry?
AH BENG: No, I'll also stay with your sister.
_________________________________________________

AH BENG: People consider me a "GOD".
WIFE: How do you know??
AH BENG: When I went to the park today, everybody said, "Oh GOD! You have come again!"
_________________________________________________

Ah Beng complained to the police: "Sir, all items are missing, except the TV in my house".
POLICE: How is it that the thief did not take the TV?
AH BENG: I was watching TV news.
_________________________________________________

Ah Beng comes back to his car and finds a note saying "Parking Fine".
He writes a note and sticks it to a pole "Thanks for compliment".
_________________________________________________

How do you recognise Ah Beng in school?
He is the one who erases the notes from the book when the teacher erases the board.
_________________________________________________

Once Ah Beng was walking with a glove on one hand and not on other. So a man asked him why he did so. He replied that the weather forecast announced that on one hand it would be cold and on the other hand it would be hot.
_________________________________________________

Ah Beng is in a bar and his cellular phone rings. He picks it up and says "Hello, how did you know I was here?"
_________________________________________________

AH BENG: Why are all these people running?
MAN: This is a race, the winner will get the cup.
AH BENG: If only the winner will get the cup, why are the others running?
_________________________________________________

TEACHER: "I killed a person" - convert this sentence into future tense.
AH BENG: The future tense is "You will go to jail".
_________________________________________________

Ah Beng told his servant, "Go and water the plants!" The servant replied, "It's already raining". Ah Beng said, "So what? Take an umbrella and go".
_________________________________________________

A man asked Ah Beng why Abdullah Ahmad Badawi goes walking in the evening and not in the morning. Ah Beng replied, "Ahmad Badawi is PM not AM".

Posted by SK at 1:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I heard someone sharing this message to a group of newly baptised and confirmed Christians (neophytes) tonight:

Be the sandals of Jesus.

That's all for now. This is reflection enough to keep me awake throughout the night.

Posted by SK at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Church is not wagging an accusing finger at its children. It is wounded with concern and fear for its children, even when its warnings are not heeded or misunderstood.

The Church can seem so hard to those who don't know her heart. They see the exterior which must be hard and firm (truthful) for all our sakes in order to protect the heart.

Joseph Quinn in "The Church's Food"

Posted by SK at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve purchased about fifteen new books in the past one week, all because there were seasonal sales going on at two major bookstores.

I’m still feeling squeamish about how I just hopped from shelf to shelf at the warehouse, gratifying my bibliographic carnality, justifying my purchases by saying to myself, “Can’t get these books any cheaper at any other time” and “I need this for my research”.

At some point, my friend who was with me said, "Hey, I have this one and that one. I can pass them to you if you want to read them". I guiltlessly replied, "Nah, I've gotta have my own copies". That was so wrong!

There now – on my four-tiered twelve-foot shelf – lie Sherlock Holmes, Oscar Wilde, Adibah Amin, Benedict XVI, Richard John Neuhaus, Bertrand Russell and others, all staring in utter disbelief at my flippant indulgence.

Is it mortal or venial? I could say I’m never going to do this again; but how dare I tell such a big fat lie.

I hate book sales. No, I love them. I just hate it that I love them. Sheesh. Maybe I should use the thickest book I bought for self-flagellation.

Still reeling. Aiyooo...

Posted by SK at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)