"I just think there is a purpose to everything God creates, whether it's a unique ability, or a cup of overpriced coffee with too much milk. Or a vampire. God will reveal that purpose when the time is right."
- Sookie's Grandmother

Absolutely amazing series.

Putting this here as a record. Found this as a comment on a thread discussing Susan's involvement in, and subsequent distancing from, Narnia. Very well put argument that refutes the oft cited criticism of sexism in the Lewis' Chronicles. Credit goes to a Jack Saelig.

"I should like to encourage readers to examine the material regarding Susan again. I too have read Mr. Pulman's books and have great respect for his craft and imagination, if not his unfortunate choice to put on blinders regarding Susan, merely because he is intolerant of Christianity.

I spent the last week re-reading the CoN, and took note in particular of the character of each of the children. Susan is conspicuously conservative and practical. This proves useful on a number of occasions (e.g. they put on the fur coats at her prompting rather than going strait away into the wintery adventure in LWW). However, it is her reluctance to face the adventure before her that is the problem. This is the classic fairy tale formula peeking in; the adventure is always the one that you never expected, and is just a little over your head, but ONLY if you have the faith to undertake it, will you be the one to get the golden egg, the magic sword, the fairy castle etc. As astutely noted by James and Ellie, the problem of Susan is not that she is damned to hell, but that she has strayed from the path of faith. It bears a more subtle reading than the multiculturalist lens of victimization would allow.

In one sense, I'm a little surprised that the deconstructionist reader is not in fact more intrigued by Susan, as she is in many ways much more complex than say, Peter. While adventurous in action, he does not show exceptional imaginiation. He doesn't take a stand until he sees, at which point his dutiousness is pretty much redoubtable. Susan on the other hand is the one only one that grapples with faith. She is complex because she stands in the shadowlands, seeing in both directions, and must struggle with discernment. A careful reading, putting neither more nor less into it than is in the text, shows that she is not damned, but merely left to struggle. She is not with the rest in Narnia, only because she is not on the train that wrecked. In this instance, she prioritized worldly matters higher than spiritual ones.

The very interesting problem, is in what she is to do following the sudden death of all her family, and the only other people who could shed light on the issue (Prof. Kirk and Polly). However, two important clues come to mind. We are not privy to just what Aslan says to her and Peter in Caspian, but is probably is similar to what is said to Lucy and Edmund, to whit, "you must learn to seek me in your world by another name." Furthermore, it is clearly mentioned more than once, in the chronicles, that "once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen of Narnia." See Luke 15:1-7, and Romans 8:38-39.

If we are to seek out subtext, it seems much more likely, that having been a queen of Narnia for literally years, Susan could not mistake it for pretend or stories, much less, the experience of Aslan, face to face. I think that it is far more reasonable to assume that her choice not to participate in the circle of the Friends of Narnia has much more to do with the reluctance to face the possibility of pain, very like the way that some people pretend that the death of a friend is not as bad as all that. Her characteristic reluctance takes her to the supposed safety of not being reminded of the most beautiful experience of her life. In choosing to be practical about the loss of Narnia, she can pursue safer pleasures of a sort that won't disappoint (even if they don't fulfill either).

I would encourage readers to look past the reckless simplicity of Lewis' form which caught me as a child, and focus instead on the substance, which is what brought me back as an adult."

I'm talking about religion of course. I don't say Christianity because it stretches even beyond that. I found myself starting to re-question the basis of my faith, and several things along the way have furthered my probing into the matter. Discussions with K, my exams, hansel25's posts on the Myths of Religion, and now Miak's post on "Different Faiths".

My reflection on religion began when i realised three things:
i) I find it increasingly difficult to defend the actions and beliefs of many of those who call themselves Christian
ii) I cannot find any convincing arguments to ask someone to convert to Christianity.
iii) The Bible is becoming more unconvincing

Point i) is obvious, and external, and so doesn't play a major role in my argument. To me the second point is more disturbing, and made me take a good hard look at why i became Christian in the first place. 14 years after my conversion i find that my reasons for accepting Christ no longer hold. As a child, becoming a Christian was all gain and no loss. My afterlife was insured, and i had someone to confide in who would grant me my wishes now and then. I summarised the most important reasons as:

1) The promise of eternal life
2) Religion as a psychological safety net
3) Blessings in return for faith in God (this translates largely into good grades)
4) Religion as a moral compass

If anyone asked me now if i believe in God i would say yes without hesitation. My study of the human body and the miracle of creation convinces me that there is a creator. I also believe that there is an Ultimate Truth, and that the seed of spirituality in all of mankind propels us to search for the truth. But that's kinda where my conviction ends at the moment. I would hesitate to proclaim the Christian assumptions that all non-believers are punished with damnation, or that the bible is infallible.

The concept of Gain; Primary and Secondary

Looking back at why i converted, i realised that the element of "Gain" in religion is unavoidable. I think what hansel25 pointed out was quite true; that if religion had no benefit to mankind, we wouldn't need it at all. All earthly religion is confounded by gain, whether primary or secondary. My first and third reasons are secondary gain, the promise of an external motivator. Religion as a moral compass and a psychological safety net are primary gains, or internal motivators. My conviction is that our search for, and belief in, the Ultimate Truth, should be untainted by any element of gain. The Truth will be the Truth, whether or not it benefits you in any way. And this is why i no longer find it possible to 'sell' Christianity to another person. A conversion through "Gain" is not true conversion. Personally, i can only remove secondary gain from my own equation. Personally, i can only remove secondary gain from my own equation. Unfortauntely, without primary gain religion wouldn't matter to me, and i actually believe this is as far as most people will get (if they even get so far as to forego secondary gain).

On the Bible

The Bible is also becoming more problematic. Current Christian doctrine dictates that the religion is bound up within its covers, which i think is a flawed concept. Firstly it was written by Man, secondly its components were not written with the purpose of being treated as an infallible holy text (as Miak pointed out), thirdly it contains too many inconsistencies to live up to being infallible. Notice that Islam doesn't make these three mistakes with the Quran. What further complicates things is that Christians like to justify everything. They go to great lengths to justify the contents of the Bible, and they use the Bible to justify everything in the world around them. This is what i believe to be the root of a lot of evil that lies in the good intentions of Christianity. A friend who turned from being staunchly Catholic to becoming atheist (he called it enlightenment) once said that the Christian God can do no wrong. If i pass my exams well it's by God's Grace. If i fail terribly it's because of my own weakness.

The vicious cycle of doctrine

The problem with religious doctrine is that it will inevitably protect itself. Once believed, the believer is forever turned against all that is contrary to it. It then is used to justify itself in a self-perpetuating cycle. The second problem is that religious doctrine is unchanging. For writing that wasn't written for the sole purpose of being religious text, this is a huge problem. This is why Christians find themselves a beleaguered people. They insist on literally interpreting a text that cannot possibly be literally applicable to the modern world.

Ok i've reached a mind block now. Can't really think of anything else to add and i'm too tired to tie up all the loose ends, so i'll just leave it hanging for now. See what you guys think about what i've written (comment pls!). I'm sorry for a long, incomplete and perhaps incoherent post. It is an amalgamation of my thoughts on the matter for the last few weeks and months. Certain things got me thinking about it again, but i have always found it difficult to string my thoughts together and put them down as one complete post. So instead of procrastinating and allowing them to evaporate, i just threw them together here and see what comes of it.

I don't see this as a struggle in the negative sense. I see it more as evolution. I don't want to believe in the Christian God because it's convenient to or because i get a whole bunch of benefits from doing so. It just all seems too convenient for me at the moment. That said, i will never 'un-believe' God. I can't even if i wanted to. It's more like i just have to sort out all the details. =P

I Am A: Lawful Good Elf Cleric (4th Level)


Ability Scores:

Strength-8

Dexterity-10

Constitution-11

Intelligence-14

Wisdom-13

Charisma-12


Alignment:
Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment because it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.


Race:
Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.


Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.


Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Et tu, Kallang? Naval battles at new stadium

WATCHING The History Channel on cable TV recently about the Colosseum in Rome, I was surprised to learn that such an amphitheatre could carry out naval battles called naumachiae within its grounds during the days of the Roman Republic. The first was organised by Julius Caesar in 46BC.

This involved filling the arena with several metres of water channelled underground to the Colosseum from the Tiber River and finally letting the water out to the Fucine Lake or back to the Tiber.

Can this spectacle be carried out at the new National Stadium with water from the nearby Kallang River and sports such as water-skiing and military skills?

The new National Stadium could be the world's first to be inspired by naumachiae.

Dennis Gordon De Souza


This letter made print edition of the forum page in our esteemed papers today. PRINT EDITION lehh. I'm just incredulous. They reject scores of well written letters in favour of sick sycophants and retards with overly fertile imaginations. It's just inconceivable...

Thankfully there's also Ho Chi Sam to the rescue in a letter rebutting that ridiculous one published two days ago telling CSJ to stop wasting taxpayers' money. As if he was being funded by taxpayers...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5itRCXkEtQUfTtL7UdMh4TkIlwfcQ

SINGAPORE (AFP) — Terrorism is usually no laughing matter, especially not in security-conscious Singapore, but the escape from custody of a limping Islamist extremist suspect has led to scorn on the Internet.

Barbed jokes and irreverent spoofs have sprouted up on websites five days after Mas Selamat bin Kastari, the alleged Singapore chief of regional terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, escaped with apparent ease from a detention centre.

"Toilet Break, based on a true story starring Mas Selamat Kastari," read a mock post on one wesbite by a blogger inspired by the hit US television drama "Prison Break".

Blogger Philip Chua wrote: "Singapore has now dropped the ball big time and really is an international laughing stock."

"You don't see prisoners escaping from terrorist detention centres in the West or Guantanamo. More so a leader of the terrorist network in the country next to you!"

Kastari, who was arrested in neighbouring Indonesia in 2006 and turned over to Singapore, remained at large Monday and officials said he was likely to be still hiding in this multiracial island republic of 4.7 million people.

Accused of plotting to hijack a plane in order to crash it into Singapore's Changi airport in 2001, Kastari managed to escape after asking to go to the toilet during a family visit, security officials said.

Direct criticism of the government is rare in the mainstream media, forcing dissatisfied Singaporeans to resort to the Internet to express their views.

Teoh Khengze, a Singapore-based author and journalist, wrote on his blog that the circumstances of what he called "The Great Singapore Escape" were "as incredulous as the escape is audacious."

Talkingcock.com, a popular satirical site, said Kastari's escape underlined the need to give cabinet ministers another salary hike even though they were already among the highest-paid in the world.

"We need to equip our Mini-stars with everything they can to deal with this crisis... and as we know in Singapore, public service and legislative influence are all not sufficient incentives," it said.

"Only the highest salaries in the world will do," the humour site said.

It showed 13 doctored photographs of Kastari in various possible disguises -- in a blonde woman's wig, a 1960s-style Afro hairdo and aviator sunglasses, a handlebar moustache and a beard and turban in Osama bin Laden style.

A popular Singaporean blogger who has previously irked the government with attacks on high living costs said the city-state need not worry about losing cabinet ministers.

"They won't be asked to resign or even take a pay cut," wrote the blogger known as Mr. Brown.

"We are not like those free-wheeling and chaotic governments from Western democracies that make their leaders accountable for every little thing."

Dear Ah Beng,

I made a speech recently calling chao ah quahs and pondans abnormal, and saying that if they have sex, they should be convicted as criminals. Now they’re sending me nasty emails and letters threatening to hantam me. How?

(Ms) Thio Hoot Leow


Dear Hoot Leow,

Aiyah, you go and say people for what? Ha?

I know theoretically, cannot go and hantam people just for what they say, lah, even if what they say is si beh stupid.

But this is Singapore, mah!

Stare at people oreddy consider kiam pak, you lagi go and say people, confirm tio hoot liao!

And dun think ah quah are all soft-soft, lembek-lembek type, can only give you girly slap, that kind.

I heard from someone (donno who) that they can do really hiong things to you – like stuffing a straw up your nose and making you drink from it!

Even worse, they can call their macho friends. You think they got no macho friends, ah? Eh, why you think Changi Village there got so many ladyboys? Because Hendon Camp is nearby and got a lot of demand straight from the commandos there! (OK, maybe ‘straight’ is not the best word.) If you think ah quah mm si lang, commando lagi mm si lang!

So how like that? I think you better take cover, and hide from all the ah quahs hunting you.

How to hide? Well, from my esperien, ah quahs really only look out for hamsum men, and stay far, far away from argly women.

I just saw your photo, so I think you’re quite safe lah.

Relac,

Ah Beng