coursera

I love being a nerd!!!

God and academia

As Christians, we of course want our worldview to be fundamentally derived from God's Word, not the climate of opinion that happens to prevail in the world in which we live. Still, since "all truth is God's truth," as Augustine taught us, we should assume that whatever is true about the views of our culture, including the views of science, will be consistent with God's Word (assuming we are interpreting it correctly). 

Locating this element of truth in the culture and aligning it with our theology based on the Word can be advantageous to communicating credibly the truth of the Word to our culture. It can also help us more effectively think through and apply our theology for our culture and for ourselves. This is why our theology should be developed in dialogue with every other branch of learning. Whatever truth is to be found in physics, biology, anthropology, and so on is God's truth and can only help us credibly proclaim the truth of God's Word to the world.

God of the Possible (2008)
Greg Boyd

I am a followers.

Warning: some preliminary brain vomit.

At the same time, my butt is going into random spasms wanting to vomit too. HAHAHA. Sorry I couldn't resist making a weird joke, but it's true.

I've been learning about this concept called the entrepreneurial self. This ideology is everywhere, I realized. I mean ideology to be a concept, a way of thinking (not in a bad way since everyone is by nature subjective). We grow up breathing and living on it, at least in Singapore. In layman terms, the entrepreneurial self is someone who relies on himself and is highly capable of voicing his personal views and lifestyle in public spaces. If he needs help, he can rely on the resources he has built up for times like this: friendships, relationships, organizations he joins and contributes to. Others see him to be a burden, a freeloader if he doesn't solve his problems himself.

Originating from the postwar human potential movement from counseling and psychotherapy that emphasized on 'talking your feelings', the entrepreneurial self is valued for his ability to analyze himself and talk about his personal life amazingly in public situations. From this concept we get the notion of "sharing" and "discussion", and our endless sentences that start with "I think", "I feel", and "for me".

I'm not saying that these are bad in themselves. Every generation has their own dominant ideologies, and for our generation, it seems to be increasingly this: in schools, in workplaces, in the government, in clubs and societies, in religious institutions.

I think I am a very entrepreneurial self. Of course it can be difficult sometimes, and I end up feeling like I'm being despised by some people in authority. But I know that I am a good storyteller by God's grace, I can share my personal feelings and stuff like that as you can see from this blog.

If I'm not careful, I will forget that living Jesus is a communal thing. The focus on the individual that came especially from the past two centuries through preachers such as Charles Finney, and D.L. Moody, and the Methodists has pretty much pervaded most of Christianity. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I find myself sometimes thinking culturally in similar individualistic ways as many Christians do.

And I forget that Jesus' key commandment for all believers is "Love one another". I can't love-one-another myself, and if Jesus is right that loving others is the biggest commandment, then community life is integral to living like him. It's not just about having friends who are believers, but obeying and serving the Lord together every day.

Following Jesus is a personal heart-thing and a communal matter. To my generation, I'd like to stress the latter. There has never been a place for individualism in God's family of believers, and I hope we would be careful to live humbly and joyfully in a community of believers too.

ENFP

Hey I'm an ENFP! 25% Extraverted, 38% Intuitive 75% Feeling, 11% Sensing.

As an ENFP, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you take things in primarily via your intuition. Your secondary mode is internal, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit in with your personal value system.

ENFPs are warm, enthusiastic people, typically very bright and full of potential. They live in the world of possibilities, and can become very passionate and excited about things. Their enthusiasm lends them the ability to inspire and motivate others, more so than we see in other types. They can talk their way in or out of anything. They love life, seeing it as a special gift, and strive to make the most out of it.

ENFPs have an unusually broad range of skills and talents. They are good at most things which interest them. Project-oriented, they may go through several different careers during their lifetime. To onlookers, the ENFP may seem directionless and without purpose, but ENFPs are actually quite consistent, in that they have a strong sense of values which they live with throughout their lives. Everything that they do must be in line with their values. An ENFP needs to feel that they are living their lives as their true Self, walking in step with what they believe is right. They see meaning in everything, and are on a continuous quest to adapt their lives and values to achieve inner peace. They're constantly aware and somewhat fearful of losing touch with themselves. Since emotional excitement is usually an important part of the ENFP's life, and because they are focused on keeping "centered", the ENFP is usually an intense individual, with highly evolved values.

An ENFP needs to focus on following through with their projects. This can be a problem area for some of these individuals. Unlike other Extraverted types, ENFPs need time alone to center themselves, and make sure they are moving in a direction which is in sync with their values. ENFPs who remain centered will usually be quite successful at their endeavors. Others may fall into the habit of dropping a project when they become excited about a new possibility, and thus they never achieve the great accomplishments which they are capable of achieving.

Most ENFPs have great people skills. They are genuinely warm and interested in people, and place great importance on their inter-personal relationships. ENFPs almost always have a strong need to be liked. Sometimes, especially at a younger age, an ENFP will tend to be "gushy" and insincere, and generally "overdo" in an effort to win acceptance. However, once an ENFP has learned to balance their need to be true to themselves with their need for acceptance, they excel at bringing out the best in others, and are typically well-liked. They have an exceptional ability to intuitively understand a person after a very short period of time, and use their intuition and flexibility to relate to others on their own level.

Because ENFPs live in the world of exciting possibilities, the details of everyday life are seen as trivial drudgery. They place no importance on detailed, maintenance-type tasks, and will frequently remain oblivous to these types of concerns. When they do have to perform these tasks, they do not enjoy themselves. This is a challenging area of life for most ENFPs, and can be frustrating for ENFP's family members.

An ENFP who has "gone wrong" may be quite manipulative - and very good it. The gift of gab which they are blessed with makes it naturally easy for them to get what they want. Most ENFPs will not abuse their abilities, because that would not jive with their value systems.

ENFPs sometimes make serious errors in judgment. They have an amazing ability to intuitively perceive the truth about a person or situation, but when they apply judgment to their perception, they may jump to the wrong conclusions.

ENFPs who have not learned to follow through may have a difficult time remaining happy in marital relationships. Always seeing the possibilities of what could be, they may become bored with what actually is. The strong sense of values will keep many ENFPs dedicated to their relationships. However, ENFPs like a little excitement in their lives, and are best matched with individuals who are comfortable with change and new experiences.

Having an ENFP parent can be a fun-filled experience, but may be stressful at times for children with strong Sensing or Judging tendancies. Such children may see the ENFP parent as inconsistent and difficult to understand, as the children are pulled along in the whirlwind life of the ENFP. Sometimes the ENFP will want to be their child's best friend, and at other times they will play the parental authoritarian. But ENFPs are always consistent in their value systems, which they will impress on their children above all else, along with a basic joy of living.

ENFPs are basically happy people. They may become unhappy when they are confined to strict schedules or mundane tasks. Consequently, ENFPs work best in situations where they have a lot of flexibility, and where they can work with people and ideas. Many go into business for themselves. They have the ability to be quite productive with little supervision, as long as they are excited about what they're doing.

Because they are so alert and sensitive, constantly scanning their environments, ENFPs often suffer from muscle tension. They have a strong need to be independent, and resist being controlled or labelled. They need to maintain control over themselves, but they do not believe in controlling others. Their dislike of dependence and suppression extends to others as well as to themselves.

ENFPs are charming, ingenuous, risk-taking, sensitive, people-oriented individuals with capabilities ranging across a broad spectrum. They have many gifts which they will use to fulfill themselves and those near them, if they are able to remain centered and master the ability of following through.

Jungian functional preference ordering for ENFP:
Dominant: Extraverted Intuition
Auxiliary: Introverted Feeling
Tertiary: Extraverted Thinking
Inferior: Introverted Sensing

An online consulting webpage

I think the description is very true, EXCEPT that the Self that I'm supposed to reconnect with is DEAD. On the contrary, self-preservation might be one of the concepts I am increasingly disliking because it stops me from following Jesus Christ in his radical and true form per Matthew 14:24. As a follower of Christ, I can proudly say that God helps me reconnect with him through the Holy Spirit, who bears witness to what Jesus has said and his very own nature.

It is purely by God's grace that he helps me interact and learn from people who are opposites in terms of their worldviews and the way they do things, like the detail-oriented people, or people who are highly organized.

Keirsey's behavior-based analysis of Idealists (ENFP is a subcategory) says that Idealists look to the spiritual as the gist of the life. They're very harsh on themselves when they violate their personal integrity and principles. Ok I guess that is me..

How do they know I get muscle tension??? Creepy...

God of the Middle Ages vs. God in the Bible

Yes, it's versus, not and. And when you take an extreme humanist reading of medieval texts, sifting the "philosophical" from the "religious", it just confuses our understanding of this magnificent being whom the Germanic tribes have first called "God".

I've been taking a class that studies medieval texts such as Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae, Christine de Pizan's Livre de Paix, and Wolfram von Eschenbach's Willehalm. And I'm writing about this because my professor said something about Johannes von Saaz's Death and the Ploughman that sparked me off to critique his interpretation: "God cannot give eternal life because it is contradictory to [inevitable] Death". Von Saaz words it this way in the last chapter of this intense philosophical and religious duel between Death and the Ploughman - God says, "...since every man is bound to give his life to Death, his body to the earth and his soul to Me".

This tedious imagined dialogue pitches the Ploughman, a noble who had lost his wife to childbirth and hates Death for robbing life, against Death, an allegorical figure who has emotive capacities and claims its inevitability. The Ploughman fights for life on earth, while Death defends his taking away of life from earth. Yet both arguments are flawed. I personally believe this overarching biblical inaccuracy falls in line with the general character of the Dark Ages - politicizing a faith into a religion at the expense of the Bible's authority. It reveals a distorted, Augustinian Christian faith, with rulers and nobles sake to justify their morality by decontextualizing verses from the Bible, and keeping the laypeople in their lowly, disenfranchised estate because they "always want war", and are "ready and armed to do all sorts of evil" (Livre de Paix 3.11, 12).

Death says life "must all come to nothing" (10). Consider this dystopian speech Death makes (20):

..every man in the moment of birth swallows the drink which pledges his death. Beginning and end are kith and kin...No one may resist what must happen in the end. The individual may not oppose what all must endure. What a man borrows he must return. On earth all men till an alien soil. From being something they must become nothing. Men's lives flee swiftly away. Though they be yet living, in the twinkling of an eye they are dead. To conclude in a word: every man owes us a death and dying is his inheritance..Either age or death must destroy all human beauty. Rosy lips must lose their color, red cheeks must pale, bright eyes must dim...Do not lament a loss which you cannot recover."

This sense of vanity in all temporal things is reminiscent of Boethian philosophy and (especially, Zen) Buddhism. The Bible says similar things too, the Teacher says that all toil on earth is in vain, "a chasing after the wind" (Eccl. 2:11), and David writes that Man is a "mere phantom" who "bustles about, only in vain", whose days are like a "passing shadow" (Ps. 39:6, 144:4). On beauty, Lemuel records a family oral tradition: "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain" (Prov. 31:30). Death as an inevitable end is a fearful truth we often seek to obliterate from our lives, because it reminds us that our toil on earth for comfort and pleasure is not only not going to last, but is going to decay.

But let's consider also the Ploughman's retort. He exposes Death as a "liar" for slandering Man, the "finest" and noblest of divine handiwork because he "alone possesses reason" (25). The Bible does tell me something similar, that we have been made in God's image (Gen. 1:27), and are "crowned with glory and honour" (Ps. 8:6). Reason as the celebration of worldly human existence carries a heavy humanist tone - God says that the noble quality that Man alone has is the image of God, thereby having the innate desire for the eternal, immutable, spiritual (i.e. intangible).

The Ploughman's idealistic celebration of worldly human existence and Man's God-ordained goodness is however only half-true. It fails to remember the Fall, which has since fully corrupted our moral and spiritual capacities, and carries grim and very fearful consequences for all in this life and after death. To the mind that perceives only the tangible, the end of mortal life is a "loss", as Death put it. But God says the contrary, that all men are "destined to die, and after that to face judgment" (Heb. 9:27). Like it or not, we are going to be judged according to His commandments on morality as revealed in the Bible. The Ploughman said that God could only be a "bad and culpable creator" if he were to create us in such moral filth (25). He's right too. God didn't impose sin on us. Death is the only and inescapable result of sin (Rom. 6:23), and God had commanded extremely early in the existence of the universe that whoever murders a man will be killed, for "God made man in His own image" (Gen. 9:6). And we know too, that Eve took that forbidden fruit out of idolatry, and Adam blamed God and Eve for causing him to sin - their feelings of idolatry and pride were not instigated, but points to our capacity to freely act and think how we deem best.

"On earth all men till an alien soil". As opposed to that bevy of Freud-Derrida-Jung theorists, Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Rahab, Hannah, David, Ruth, Paul, Peter, John and others in the Bible got it right. They were humble and honest enough to recognize their absolute inability to do that which is good (i.e. of eternal and spiritual value). What did they do that God honours and celebrates them in His Word? I'm reminded of the verse(s) I shared in the book I gave to Kat (Hi! Honorary mention, h_h_ > sekret joke)

They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth...Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."
Heb. 11: 14, 16

Returning to what my professor taught in class today, I say that YES, God can give eternal life and He does! We can do nothing to earn it, the Bible says many times that it is "the gift of God" (Jn. 4:10; Rom. 5:15-6, 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Jn. 5:11 and others) It is gratuitous, yet freely available to all (Mk. 10:24; Jn. 3:16; Heb. 9:27-8 and others). The God of old - waaay older than the old antiquity - calls out to all men, His beloved creation, fashioned in His own image that He was and is giving eternal life, thus overcoming Death, inevitable as it is as a means to punish unholiness (i.e. sin).

Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" ' Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.

Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'
Ez. 33:10-1

Dear God, thank you for this unceasingly wondrous promise of hope amidst bleakness and evil. Amen and Amen!

I need to debunk my professor

On the Wednesday after spring break, I had my first conference with Mr Clouser. And he's challenged me massively to my ideals of beauty. He said the reason why many people don't think convulsion and contortion (think African trance) is beautiful is because of cultural differences.

No, I think on top of personal experience and the natural, observable world, the Bible has something to say about the parameters of beauty. And spiritual oppression for that matter.

Quick, I need an intelligent answer to make him accept my stand.

Anthropology 395B

Two of Kristeva's interests seem to coincide with our own: the creation of subordinate groups through positioning in language (Kristeva is especially interested in women), and the disruption of the process through which such positioning is habitually achieved.

Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The meaning of style (1979)

Thanks Dick, but why would want I to know if Kristeva is especially interested in women. And her interest in women does not coincide with mine.

Quotes of the day

"Any idiot, any total fool can post anything on the Internet."
Dr Classen, on looking for sources

"A god that lets us prove its existence is an idol."
Dietrich bon Hoeffer, Lutheran pastor killed for the Hitler assassination attempt

Thoughts:
effective and respectful pedagogy
immanence embodied by Christ
Boethian happiness
listen, listen, listen
love in wisdom
God's grace

And lastly, this super cute and hilarious illustration of a wrist accupoint you can press to reduce motion sickness. Credits go to Yingjie.

LOL!

From schoolwork

The Gospel is the pivot of Christian faith for two reasons. Firstly, the Scripture is a portrayal of redemptive history; each book of the Old Testament foreshadows the coming of Christ and the salvation He accomplishes. The first of the Pentateuch, Genesis (Chapter 3), records that God has already prepared salvation through a Man (Christ's incarnation, read more in Nicene Creed) that will triumph over a Snake (Satan, who also represents death - his punishment for rebellion against God). The old covenantal system includes animal sacrifice, which foreshadows the final resolution of forgiveness of sin through Christ's death (hence He is called the Lamb of God in books such as Isaiah and Revelations). The New Testament testifies to how Christ has fulfilled the prophesies in the Old Testament, how people live as a result of the Gospel, and what is to come (the popularly misconceptualised Armageddeon and the New Heaven and New Earth afterwards). There are many other foreshadowings and fulfilment of Scripture that points to the Gospel - Christ's incarnation to come to earth to fulfill God's wrath against our sin on our behalf, and triumphing over Satan and death three days later through resurrection.

As opposed to what some earlier posts have articulated and tried to reconcile between faith and works, it is helpful to understand that humans are of total depravity, of utter sinfulness since the Fall. This is major-ly why we seek and put so much effort to 'do good', to look for philosophies in life or religions that guide us to being better. We don't go around looking for mantras to do bad, because it is inherent in us. It takes much more effort to forgive a person than to yell 'You evil creep!' at him.

A few quotations from the Bible - Ephesians 2:1 we are 'dead in our transgressions and sins', Romans 3:23 'all have sinned and have fall short of the glory of God' and Psalm 53:2-3 'Everyone has turned away' from seeking God, 'there is no one who does good, not even one'. Surely it can't be that our striving to do good, to bring joy to others, sometimes even at our own expense, is discounted all the way to zilch. And this comes to what our definition of 'doing good' is. 'Doing good' is prevalently seen as bringing benefit to others, sometimes even in moral ambiguity (such as white lies, or concealing truth), according to how we perceive it. It is often a compensation of guilt of what one has done wrong -sometimes in anticipation of it- to appease a stricken conscience. As a side statement, Scripture does not attest to the Kantian morality.

As John MacArthur succinctly puts it, what is good is that which is of eternal value, just as God is the absolute measure of standards. What good humanism approves is not seen as good in the eyes of God because it is not done with according to the recognition of God as the Measure of goodness, which is commonly understood as to the glory of God. Because of our total depravity, all is stained, in our motives, in our carrying out of actions. Our sin barricades us from seeking God, who is of utmost holiness, and therefore negates any eternal value a good deed may have. It is only which Christ can break because He has become the firstfruit of Christians by triumphing over death, so that those who believe in the Gospel by triumph over death (the second death: eternal separation from God and eternal anguish and suffering, cf Revelations 20:14-15, 21:8). The natural entailment of such a statement is that no one does good unless He is able to seek God, the only way to Him through which is Christ, as stated familiarly in John 14:6 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes through to the Father except through Me.' I hope this answers an earlier request for a definition of goodness.

Interestingly, it is the 'exclusivity' or absolution that only Christ can save that accounts for:

(1) Why Jesus was seen as an anti-establishment figure during His earthly ministry: that all the good deeds that the Pharisees did, alongside their sinful deeds of pride and discrimination, are legalistic and thus, zilch in the eyes of God.

(2a) Why some convinced atheists or others of the like find that Christianity is 'restricting', or as a fellow classmate stated, a 'sweeping' statement, which is often seen as arrogant and preposterous.

(2b) Why some Christians dilute the absolution of Sola Christus by agreeing, as some fellow classmates have, that Christ or not, living by conscience (which is already tainted and humanistic, as argued earlier) is the 'right' way to afterlife. Ironically, we're going back to the worldly definition of goodness.

(3) Why people think God is so unloving and totally inconsistent with what He promises in John 3:16 'For God so loved the world'. If I may, this is amply expressed (along with suffering) by the Blackeyed Peas, "Since this guy is from above, you have got me, got me questionin', 'Where is the love?' "

Don Carson provides an enlightening exposition on God's love in his book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (1999), that the Bible conveys God's love in five different characteristics. They are related, definite but not any should be absolutised and single-dimensionalised into God's love. Two aspects that can be considered when it comes to the popular contention of loving even Hitlers who have accepted Christ and turned 180 degrees are: God's providential love and elective love. Every one is worthy of love, exemplified by the Noahic covenant, where common grace is extended to all. The Noahic covenant in Genesis 9:11 'Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood'. Common grace is that which is freely given to all, God's people or not, as in Matthew 5:45 'He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous'. I'm totally sure no one can ever deny common grace. I'm really very sure that no one can ever say that God sucks because He's always only sending storms, literally, over his head, but not over his Christian friends. Or that he doesn't know when the sun rises because God only restricted the view of the sun to believers.

God's elective love tells us that God chooses people, not because of any merits/demerits these persons might have to accumulate favour like in popularity contests, but out of love. If you would allow me to use this analogy, why a man ends up with a certain woman as his wife cannot be explained by popularity contests. In non-flings and non-puppy love relationships, a man doesn't change his wife because another girl is more intelligent, or is less impatient, less suspicious. Sure, there may be other girls who display such qualities, but he loves his wife just because he loves his wife, not any merits the wife has earned whatsoever.

This explains why God chooses His people, exemplified by his choice of Jacob over Esau, as in Romans 9:11-13.
'Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls...just as it was written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'

In accordance with God's providential display of love to all mankind, and to his sovereign choosing of people, it is hard for Christians to love enemies out of own strength, but through the Gospel. As Jerry Bridges writes in Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (2006), one cannot love enemies unless he comes to realisation that no personal offense by another can surmount to one's spiritual debt to God (that Christ carried punishment that was meant for us because of our sinful nature, cf Romans 5:8, Isaiah 53:4-6). It is difficult to love one's enemies, but through what Bridges calls 'dependent responsibility', Christians are able to fulfill this along with training (cf Hebrews 12) as long as he depends on the Lord for this ability and remembers the spiritual debt that was freely forgiven, though dearly paid for by Christ, ie the Gospel.

A recurring idea that I've been putting forth about the Gospel and Christian life is that salvation is only by faith. Christians are justified before God because a confession of both mouth and heart (Romans 10:9) that only through Christ's power of atonement can one be saved from God's wrath over the sin of mankind. Any attempt to 'try' and do things in order to attain even Christian goals are attempts to credit merit and favour to ourselves, and forfeits what Christians have been commanded to do in Proverbs 3:5-6 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.' Notice that this doesn't suggest any God's grace and forgiveness as a license to sin, which some early Christians did, and some Christians nowadays still do, sadly. The Bible reproaches strictly against that: 'Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?' (Romans 6:2).

Regarding the contention over James 2, which is best expressed by v26, "faith without deeds is dead". I find it a rather common misunderstanding to take this portion to mean that works also count in determining whether one is saved. I suppose proponents have mistaken justification for salvation, that Christianity is ironically teaching that one can accredit merit to himself in order to be made righteous by God. As an earlier post has touched on, a change in life, what the apostle Paul calls 'the new self' (Romans 4:22-24) is to do the moral will of God, ie what is stated in the Bible, such as loving one's enemies. James, the 'half-brother' of Jesus, wrote this to reproach nominal, self-professing Christians whose confessions are only in the mouth, but empty in heart, not to propose that if we do good, that will gain points in helping us complete our percentage of how saved we are. Salvation is complete at the time of confession and acceptance in that we do nothing to earn the full process, to 'level up'.

On Dialects, Pronunciation and Orthography

The Lord's Prayer

Authorised King James Version (1611)

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Young's Literal Translation (1898)

Our Father who art in the heavens! hallowed be Thy name.
Thy reign come: Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on the earth.
Our appointed bread give us to-day.
And forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors.
And mayest Thou not lead us to temptation, but deliver us from the evil, because Thine is the reign, and the power, and the glory -- to the ages. Amen.

New American Standardised Bible (1995)

Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Bible In Cockney: Well Bits of It, Anyway..., Mike Coles (2001)

Hello, Dad, up there in good ol' heaven, Your name is well great and holy, and we respect you, Guv. We hope we can all 'ave a butcher's [butcher's hook = look] at heaven and be there as soon as possible; and we want to make you happy, Guv, and do what you want 'ere on earth, just like what you do in heaven. Guv, please give us some Uncle Fred [= bread], and enough grub [food] and stuff to keep us going today, and we hope you'll forgive us when we cock things up, just like we're supposed to forgive all them who annoy us and do dodgy [bad] stuff to us. There's a lot of dodgy people around, Guv; please don't let us get tempted to do bad things. Help keep us away from all that nasty, evil stuff, and keep that dodgy Satan away from us, 'cos you're much stronger than 'im. You're the Boss, God, and will be for ever, innit? Cheers, Amen.

Simplifying spelling...

Simplified (Idiolectic) Authorised King James Bible

Auer Father wech artn hehve(r)n, Heloud b Thi neim.
Thi keengdi(r)m kam, Thi wel b danin irth, es idizin hehven.
Geevuz thez dei auer deilee bred.
And forgeevus aure deds, es wee forgeev aure detirs.
And leedus nodeentu temteishn, bat deelevirus from eevl.
For Thinees thi(r) keengdi(r)m, and thi(r) pauer, and thi(r) gloree, ferehvir. Amen.

And..the Cockney version.

Bible In Cockney: Well Bits of It, Anyway..., Mike Coles (2001)

Helou, Dad, ap theren gi(r)d oul' hehven, Yawr neimez weal greidn houlee, and wee respekchyu, Gi(r)f. Wee houp wee kan awlafe bechrz at hehven and b ther asun as pawsebel; and wee wantu meikyu hapee, Gi(r)f, and du wachyu want eeirawn irth, jerz laeek wachyu dueen hehven. Gi(r)f, pleez gevi(r)sam Angki(r)l Fred, and eenav gri(r)b and sti(r)f tu keep as gouweeng tedei, and wee houp yuwi(r)l forgeevas wen wee kawk theengzap, ji(r)z laik weeir si(r)pouztu fi(r)giv all them hu i(r)noee as and du dawdg sti(r)f tu as. Therz a lat uv dawdg peepi(r)l irraund, Gi(r)v; pleez doun leddus get temtid tu du bad theengz. Help keep as i(r)wei from awl that nastee, eevi(r)l sti(r)f, and keep that dawdg Seitn i(r)wei frommus, cawzur mach strawngr thaneem. Yer thi(r) Baws, Gawd, and wil b for evir, eenit? Cheerz, Amen.

Should there be a major revamp to English spelling? Not for me, thanks. Moreover, I can't imagine how the colloquial Singaporean English version would be like!

Direct Action

An interesting excerpt from José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1951)

--------
Wiki says:
Direct action is a form of political activism which seeks immediate remedy for perceived ills, as opposed to indirect actions such as electing representatives who promise to provide remedy at some later date.
--------

Gasset takes direct action to the sociological level to analyse the mass man, the average man of modern society who lives in intellectual hermeticism, liberally expanding his desires without gratitude for the toil that made possible for his ease of existence. The mass man possesses a hedonist streak sanctified by liberalism.

'Why should he listen if he has within him all that is necessary? There is no reason now for listening, but rather for judging, pronouncing, deciding. There is no question concerning public life, in which he does not intervene, blind and deaf as he is, imposing his "opinions." 

But, is this not an advantage? Is it not a sign of immense progress that the masses should have "ideas," that is to say, should be cultured? By no means. The "ideas" of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-man can have recourse. There is no culture where there are no principles of legality to which to appeal. There is no culture where there is no acceptance of certain final intellectual positions to which a dispute may be referred. There is no culture where economic relations are not subject to a regulating principle to protect interests involved. There is no culture where aesthetic controversy does not recognize the necessity of justifying the work of art. 

When all these things are lacking there is no culture; there is in the strictest sense of the word, barbarism. And let us not deceive ourselves, this is what is beginning to appear in Europe under the progressive rebellion of the masses. The traveler knows that in the territory there are no ruling principles to which it is possible to appeal. Properly speaking, there are no barbarian standards. Barbarism is the absence of standards to which appeal can be made.'

---

'When the reconstruction of the origins of our epoch is undertaken, it will be observed that the first notes of its special harmony were sounded in those groups of French syndicalists and realists of about 1900, inventors of the method and the name of "direct action." Man has always had recourse to violence; sometimes this recourse was a mere crime, and does not interest us here. But at other times violence was the means resorted to by him who had previously exhausted all others in defence of the rights of justice which he thought he possessed. It may be regrettable that human nature tends on occasion to this form of violence, but it is undeniable that it implies the greatest tribute to reason and justice. For this form of violence is none other than reason exasperated. Force was, in fact, the ultima ratio. Rather stupidly it has been the custom to take ironically this expression, which clearly indicates the previous submission of force to methods of reason. Civilisation is nothing else than the attempt to reduce force to being the ultima ratio. We are now beginning to realise this with startling clearness , because "direct action" consists in inverting the order and proclaiming violence as prima ratio, or strictly as unica ratio. It is the norm which proposes the annulment of all norms, which suppresses all intermediate process between our purpose and its execution. It is the Magna Charta of barbarism. 

It is well to recall that at every epoch when the mass, for one purpose or another, has taken a part in public life, it has been in the form of "direct action." This was, then, the natural modus operandi of the masses. And the thesis of this essay is strongly confirmed by the patent fact that at present when the overruling intervention in public life of the masses has passed from casual and infrequent to being the normal, it is "direct action" which appears officially as the recognised method. 

All our communal life is coming under this regime in which appeal to "indirect" authority is suppressed. In social relations "good manners" no longer hold sway. Literature as "direct action" appears in the form of insult. The restrictions of sexual relations are reduced. 

Restrictions, standards, courtesy, indirect methods, justice, reason! Why were all these invented, why all these complications created? They are all summed up in the word civilisation, which, through the underlying notion of civis, the citizen, reveals its real origin. By means of all these there is an attempt to make possible the city, the community, common life. Hence, if we look into all these constituents of civilisation just enumerated, we shall find the same common basis. All, in fact, presuppose the radical progressive desire on the part of each individual to take others into consideration. Civilisation is before all, the will to live in common. A man is uncivilised, barbarian in the degree in which he does not take others into account. Barbarism is the tendency to disassociation. Accordingly, all barbarous epochs have been times of human scattering, of the pullulation of tiny groups, separate from and hostile to one another.'