Unusual court case: Mrs. De Prived Vs. Church, Bible and Jesus
Mrs. De Prived filed a law suit in a U.S. District Court, in which she named as defendants: Her church, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. She asked for a judgement of five million dollars ($ 5,000,000.00), an amount that was equal to half their previous net worth.
The following was a short version of what took place in Court.
Judge:
You cannot sue the Bible, and, most definitely, you cannot sue Jesus Christ.
Mrs. DP:
Your Honor, I can prove that the Bible and Jesus were responsible.
Judge:
Very well, proceed. God, please help me.
Mrs. DP:
Your Honor, it's like this ...
We live in a community property state, and whatever property a married couple owns is divided into equal halves. We were rich, until two weeks ago, after our morning church service.
Judge:
Please elaborate.
Mrs. DP:
The sermon was based on "eternal life", and the pastor used Matthew 19 as the main reference. In particular, he emphasized
Matthew 19:21 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
Matthew 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Judge:
That was what I was taught in Sunday School as well.
Mrs. DP:
Yes, but my husband took the sermon literally. He sold everything we owned and gave all the money to the church. He never consulted me, and half of what he gave away was mine. I like my church, but I now have 5 million reasons to like it less. My husband gave away my $5,000,000.00.
You see ...
If Jesus had not said what Matthew wrote down, then the preacher would not have been able to quote it.
If the preacher had not used that in the sermon, then the message would not have been delivered.
Consequently, my husband would not have given away the ten million dollars to our church. I want my money back. I suggest the church give it back to me so that its entire congregation would have eternal life.
Judge: Hmmmm ....
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
God's beautiful creatures
"And why take ye thought for raiment?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow;
they toil not, neither do they spin."
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow;
they toil not, neither do they spin."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
God, do they represent you?
They say God is everywhere (omnipresent), but they frown when I ask: "Why bother trying to get to heaven, since God is also in hell?"
I guess "everywhere" does not really mean "everywhere", but "everywhere that is good".
They claim their holy book is God's words dictated to men and transcribed verbatim. They proclaimed that "God had no beginning, and God has no ending", but they look at me with raised eyebrows when I ask about a verse from their holy book that reads "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending".
I guess "beginning" and "ending" means "no beginning" and "no ending".
They each claim that their God is the creator of the universe, but will not admit that they are referring to the same God.
I guess they each have their own "universe", and hence their own God.
Is there any wonder I prefer to look for God on my own?
I guess "everywhere" does not really mean "everywhere", but "everywhere that is good".
They claim their holy book is God's words dictated to men and transcribed verbatim. They proclaimed that "God had no beginning, and God has no ending", but they look at me with raised eyebrows when I ask about a verse from their holy book that reads "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending".
I guess "beginning" and "ending" means "no beginning" and "no ending".
They each claim that their God is the creator of the universe, but will not admit that they are referring to the same God.
I guess they each have their own "universe", and hence their own God.
Is there any wonder I prefer to look for God on my own?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Any more Dayaks around ?
I got a t-shirt in Kuching with the "head hunter" design. While wearing this t-shirt recently, I received a comment from an American who has heard of old Borneo, and is thinking of visiting Borneo. He remarked, "It is too bad that the Dayaks are now extinct."I asked where he got that piece of information, and assured him that the ("sea" and "land") Dayaks are alive and well in Sarawak. He insisted that there are no more Dayaks; he got the population make-up (for Malaysia) from the US Department of State official site.
Well ... what can I say
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Democracy - Asian Style
I used to think that democracy, as we understand, would not see the light of day in Asia. After an analysis of what goes on in many parts of Asia, I have come to believe that democracy is alive and well in that part of the world.
Democracy, by definition, works superbly well in societies where at least one of the following elements exists:
- autocracy
- theocracy
- dictatorship
Each of the above guarantees "majority" when it comes to "elections". Each has the wherewithal to "convincingly persuade" the voting population that it (current ruler) is the legitimate ruler. Anyone who shows the slightest hint of doubt will be introduced to a little more persuasion.
Result: Majority casts its vote for the current ruler - "true democracy" at work !
Fascinating ...
Democracy, by definition, works superbly well in societies where at least one of the following elements exists:
- autocracy
- theocracy
- dictatorship
Each of the above guarantees "majority" when it comes to "elections". Each has the wherewithal to "convincingly persuade" the voting population that it (current ruler) is the legitimate ruler. Anyone who shows the slightest hint of doubt will be introduced to a little more persuasion.
Result: Majority casts its vote for the current ruler - "true democracy" at work !
Fascinating ...
Democracy - USA style
The United States of America has always considered itself a democracy. But is it, by definition?
Consider a sampling of definitions for democracy
Wikipedia: "Democracy- a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state."
Online dictionary:"Democracy- government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."
Now look at the statistics related to the election of Obama (2008 US presidential election):
Total number of registered voters = 169 million:
86 million democrats
55 million republicans
28 million "others"
Total USA population in 2008 = 303,824,640 (July estimate)
Total number of votes cast = 131,257,328
= 77.67% of registered voters actually voted
Total number of votes Obama received = 69,456,897
= 41.10% of registered voters
= 52.92% of total number of votes cast
= 22.86% of total estimated USA popution
Forty-one percent is not a majority. It is quite clear that only a minority of all registered (a subset of eligible) voters in the USA chose Obama to the the president. On the other hand, one may argue that 52.92% of all the votes counted is what matters - all else are secondary.
I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of this form of democracy.
Consider a sampling of definitions for democracy
Wikipedia: "Democracy- a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state."
Online dictionary:"Democracy- government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."
Now look at the statistics related to the election of Obama (2008 US presidential election):
Total number of registered voters = 169 million:
86 million democrats
55 million republicans
28 million "others"
Total USA population in 2008 = 303,824,640 (July estimate)
Total number of votes cast = 131,257,328
= 77.67% of registered voters actually voted
Total number of votes Obama received = 69,456,897
= 41.10% of registered voters
= 52.92% of total number of votes cast
= 22.86% of total estimated USA popution
Forty-one percent is not a majority. It is quite clear that only a minority of all registered (a subset of eligible) voters in the USA chose Obama to the the president. On the other hand, one may argue that 52.92% of all the votes counted is what matters - all else are secondary.
I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of this form of democracy.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Colonialism - new form
Colonialism is alive and well ...
Many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries are former colonies. Under that old system, a "master" country, e.g., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, ... , controlled the running of the colonies, even if the colonies might have been previously ruled by their respective kings, sultans, tribal chiefs, etc.
This old style colonialism has since disappeared, and a new form of colonialism has emerged.
As was usually the case, when the colonial master left, the former colonies were granted "independence". New head of state was selected in the new country, normally from among the country's privileged few, and crucial governmental positions were given to members of the same group. This group typically comprised people of the same faith, or ethnicity, or tribe, or ..., and became the new "master". Everyone else outside of this elite group remained "colonies".
Under this new style colonialism, the "masters" would proclaim that there is equality for all, but leaving out the fact that there is "more equality" reserved for themselves.
The "new" master learned well from the "old" ...
Many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries are former colonies. Under that old system, a "master" country, e.g., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, ... , controlled the running of the colonies, even if the colonies might have been previously ruled by their respective kings, sultans, tribal chiefs, etc.
This old style colonialism has since disappeared, and a new form of colonialism has emerged.
As was usually the case, when the colonial master left, the former colonies were granted "independence". New head of state was selected in the new country, normally from among the country's privileged few, and crucial governmental positions were given to members of the same group. This group typically comprised people of the same faith, or ethnicity, or tribe, or ..., and became the new "master". Everyone else outside of this elite group remained "colonies".
Under this new style colonialism, the "masters" would proclaim that there is equality for all, but leaving out the fact that there is "more equality" reserved for themselves.
The "new" master learned well from the "old" ...
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Did God invent Chinese characters ?
In a cyber gathering of my former school and classmates, some have expressed their memory of a missionary worker who, with his wife, regularly visited my high school on weekends. I found myself not remembering this "preacher" as fondly as did my former schoolmates.
This missionary worker spoke Mandarin Chinese. He would use a Chinese character (in its traditional form), "來 (come)" to describe the crucifixion. He likened the components in that character, i.e., one "十", and three "人 (men)" to Jesus and the two thieves on the cross, i.e. a big man in the middle, "木", with two little men, "人 人", on both sides.
Therefore, according to this preacher, the Chinese character for "come" was clearly a call to all to come to Christ. When I suggested that Jesus was not around when the Chinese character was first used, he assured me that God had a hand in the formation of that and other characters.
If that were the case, I asked, "Is it alright, by God, for a female to have sexual intercourse with other females, since the Chinese character for fornication (姦) is formed by stacking one woman (女) atop two women lying side by side (女女)?"
That question resulted in a public prayer for my soul.
I was not one of his favorites, and it was OK. I didn't buy that "come" argument, any more than I did my own "fornication" example. To me, the use of those Chinese characters was a simple matter of two men using two different Chinese characters to make they own (human) case. It had nothing to do with any divine design.
No offense to missionaries ...
This missionary worker spoke Mandarin Chinese. He would use a Chinese character (in its traditional form), "來 (come)" to describe the crucifixion. He likened the components in that character, i.e., one "十", and three "人 (men)" to Jesus and the two thieves on the cross, i.e. a big man in the middle, "木", with two little men, "人 人", on both sides.
Therefore, according to this preacher, the Chinese character for "come" was clearly a call to all to come to Christ. When I suggested that Jesus was not around when the Chinese character was first used, he assured me that God had a hand in the formation of that and other characters.
If that were the case, I asked, "Is it alright, by God, for a female to have sexual intercourse with other females, since the Chinese character for fornication (姦) is formed by stacking one woman (女) atop two women lying side by side (女女)?"
That question resulted in a public prayer for my soul.
I was not one of his favorites, and it was OK. I didn't buy that "come" argument, any more than I did my own "fornication" example. To me, the use of those Chinese characters was a simple matter of two men using two different Chinese characters to make they own (human) case. It had nothing to do with any divine design.
No offense to missionaries ...
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Blogging: a form of verbal diarrhoea ?
A friend once told me that blogging is a bad case of "verbal diarrhoea". According to this friend, blogging is like having ingested something very bad and wanting to discharge it most urgently, but being unable to do so in a appropriate setting. Fortunately for the blogger, the internet is like a big community toilet, and is a perfect place (for the blogger) to let it all come out.
I believed that, i.e., blogging was verbal diarrhoea.
I may have changed my mind, after reading some blogs, especially those written by people who are not allowed to "poop in a regular toilet". This group of bloggers see social injustice, want to right the wrong, but are rendered helpless because of the layers upon layers of bureaucratic red tapes they encounter. This group also comprises conscientious ordinary citizens who wish to exercise civil disobedience but are threatened with the potential charge of sedition. To this group of civic minded individuals, blogging seems like the only avenue with which to voice their concerns, and to hope against hope that someone would actually listen (and, hopefully, hear) and do something.
Well, I still think blogging is a form of verbal diarrhoea. What changed is how I now view the potential effect of this diarrhoea on those around. I used to think that it was just verbal fecal waste - plain and simple. I now think it is a necessary discharge, and it, perhaps because of the awful stink, gets the needed attention.
I have not reached diarrhoea stage yet. I do not have a cause to champion, or an axe to grind, or an injustice to make just. I have no message to get across.
Fear not, readers, for my poop does not stink. I am just pretending that I am a "blogger", whatever a "blogger" may be.
Till next time.
I believed that, i.e., blogging was verbal diarrhoea.
I may have changed my mind, after reading some blogs, especially those written by people who are not allowed to "poop in a regular toilet". This group of bloggers see social injustice, want to right the wrong, but are rendered helpless because of the layers upon layers of bureaucratic red tapes they encounter. This group also comprises conscientious ordinary citizens who wish to exercise civil disobedience but are threatened with the potential charge of sedition. To this group of civic minded individuals, blogging seems like the only avenue with which to voice their concerns, and to hope against hope that someone would actually listen (and, hopefully, hear) and do something.
Well, I still think blogging is a form of verbal diarrhoea. What changed is how I now view the potential effect of this diarrhoea on those around. I used to think that it was just verbal fecal waste - plain and simple. I now think it is a necessary discharge, and it, perhaps because of the awful stink, gets the needed attention.
I have not reached diarrhoea stage yet. I do not have a cause to champion, or an axe to grind, or an injustice to make just. I have no message to get across.
Fear not, readers, for my poop does not stink. I am just pretending that I am a "blogger", whatever a "blogger" may be.
Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
