[[How has been]]

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

[[Some comments on environmentalism]]

It seems to me that there is a very fundamental assumption to environmentalist thinking / actions that can be challenged.

This assumption can be phrased in the following way.

Nature is that which has been in the past.

Nature is good.

Let me state that the past has never been constant. Mass extinction events have happened (regardless if you believe in creation or evolution). Take global warming for example. The earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout history. Let me assume the creationist can work through this himself/herself. For the evolutionist, changing circumstances lead to extinctions yes, and then diversification and speciation. So... newer species should be created (perhaps into the future) and they will be better adapted to the new climate. Why do we want to keep the past? Or the status quo? What is this past good for other than previous ways of doing things? It is true that humans have conquered the current ecological domain pretty well... so is this whole thing just to ensure continued human dominance of how the climate is now?

If that is true, then Nature is good is modified to a subjective "nature is good for humans". If that is what we are working with, the past might not be "good for humans" since it seems that generally humans are progressing on most metrics of life. There is debate as to whether this progress will continue. In any case, if human welfare is the ends, environmentalism becomes one mere means to the end rather than a good in itself (e.g if nature is good in itself). If environmentalism is a means to an end, it will have to be compared against all other means such as technological advancements .etc.

Supporting the above discussion, there is this further assumption of....

Humans actions are not "natural"

...possibly because...

Humans are not part of nature

I am always very curious to know how do people conclude that something is not natural. If evolution, surely we are natural. And surely what we do is natural as well yes? Unless we unnaturally evolved?

For the record I think homosexual sex is natural. Natural and wrong, that is, since nature is sinful.

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:04 AM|

Monday, March 26, 2018

[[Targeted ads??]]

I find the big hoo-haa over cambridge analytica to be such a joke.

As far as I see, the debate is over facebook handing over your private information to companies. Usually companies use these to target ads and stuff. Except that in this case, the ad was targeted for people to vote for trump. And trump won. And people are unhappy. Maybe there is more than just upfront ads, but also like recommended things on newsfeed .etc. Apparently the "data" in question was got in 2015 from some random quiz created by some cambridge academic. I presume this thing in question is different from "fake news", which is quite a different story.

I am not going to give a right or wrong evaluation. Cos I don't really have one, and I don't really care.

I have two things to say, however.

Firstly, are people that weak? Like... It's ads. Theres no gun being pointed to your head, no fine if you fail to buy or vote or whatever. "Influence" and "persuasion" are being thrown around alot. However, in the end, people buy what they want to buy and believe what they want to believe. Just because you are targeted because you fit a particular demographic or thingy due to profiling doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the ad blasted at you. I mean, you see people approaching people at train stations to sell insurance or whatnot. I look young so they usually don't approach me. They seem to target a particular group of working class adults through dressing, appearances .etc. So there is some discernment, some targeted-ness. Maybe it is not as comprehensive. But nobody here has any issue right, everyone just ignores them. Only those who are open to buying insurance are open to being approached.

Maybe the issue is that they expect the content on their facebook to be... what? non-partisan? But comon, thats freaking stupid an expectation - facebook needs to earn money somehow. EVEN if facebook desont need to earn money, who's definition of balanced are you gonna use. Shouldn't it be the consumer of content that decides what content they want? I think this is just some very convenient pointing of fingers because trump won, and some people dont like trump. I expect my attention to not be hijacked by randomass ads. But if i walk to a bus stop and an ad is there, a targeted ad for students at bus stops (because it is an nus bus stop) whats the issue? I still choose whether to read what it says or not, to believe what it says or not. Rather than fight this battle here, shouldn't the battle be fought to teach people how to make their own choices? And if people are so gullible, well, they pay the price I guess. But I reckon it is very easy to say they are gullible just because they disagree. What if the ads ran in the opposite direction and pumped out alot of informative articles on how hillary has much more political experience at statesmanship than trump and she won? (and these were targeted at only educated people). Would it be an issue? The sub-point here is that it is much easier to blame other for being gullible when they dont make the same choices as you and you think you are smart as shit.

Secondly, what do you expect is being done with your information? Maybe the campaign should be to make people aware that the information is potentially being used in marketing .etc. They can then make the choice as to how much information is being pumped in. Like it is a contract between you and them for using their free service right. And if you don't want to give the information, don't! its pretty simple. Or don't use their free service. It is like advertisers asking your friend (in which case, facebook) what you like in order to better market to you their products. Well, unless you told your friend to shut up, you can't really blame him/her right (even if they make money buy selling what you told). The thing is, there is no way your facebook friend will shut up, like, they are only your friend so you can tell them things so they can sell them to other people. So... I guess just be discerning?

Of course regulation .etc. can make sense and might be good. But it seems at a personal level, much can be done that will sorta just nullify most of the impact that these targeted ads can have.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:57 AM|

Friday, March 16, 2018

[[On alternate bible interpretations]]

I am typing this, with my own hand in reasonably large font, to try and illustrate something quite misunderstood or unknown in CF - Why we do bible study the way we do it.

Firstly, I am not a spokesperson for why CF choose to do bible study in such a manner. I didn't choose it. Ok... I choose not to fight super hard to change it. In fact, one of the reasons why I joined exoc was because I thought bible study could be done in a much better way and perhaps, to change how it was done. Well, there was some limited change (there is always change) and I am ok with it. I see where it is coming from, and I see the value of it.

So what is it? How does CF do bible study?

There are two types of studies that CF does, topicals and bible studies. This year's bible studies are from Philippians. We shall just look at bible studies.

Bible studies are written by BEST (a group of students), edited by a team from the exco (together with staff workers) and ultimately vetted and approved by the staff workers. Before each study, the CGLs attend centralised bible study where the staff workers run through the content of the particular study (plus some other tips on how to lead or respond).

Why is the study written by students?
There exists lots of bible study material for almost every part of the bible. Much of them are pretty "good". Why not use these, perhaps carefully curated and possibly modified by a team rather than writing them from scratch? That would bring some sort of "quality control", especially if the publisher has a good reputation or something.
Response: Good question. It is not necessarily out of the picture.

Okok. Let's not beat around the bushes. I feel like I am attempting to provide an exhaustive defence of sort, but let me not.

Question: Why does CF do IBS / dabble in non-mainstream interpretations?
If you haven't noticed, CF does not do Bible study like how a church does. How a church does it is usually, hey, this is the correct way to read it. This is the main point of the text. This is what you should learn from the text. How can it change your life is in such and such a way, possibly.
Once upon a time, I thought CF could do this much better than how the church does, so when I was leading a bible study group, I always tried to push the "application" part more, to extend it further, to really push the boundaries. Paul says.. say, be content in all things (random example) rather than the normal things that people usually say about being content like money or grades ... what about relationships? what about families? what about churches? The thrust here is to apply the said point, to more of one's life and hence, change one's life more in a manner that is pleasing to God. I do still think this is a very good place that CF can value add over and beyond the church. That we as thinking students, can be more reflective and the scalpel can be skilfully guided towards a leaner cut, excising more sin and following God more closely.
But there is another way, a more "meta" way. I don't know whether it is a more excellent way. And this is the way, I think, in the past decade (?) and fully supported by the staff workers.
Let me talk about it in my own words. Where the critical faculties, in that described above was trained on how to apply the word to our lives (and hence, cover a greater part of our lives), this method turns these critical faculties on what the bible says. A critical reading on what the bible says yields possible alternate interpretations. Disclaimer: This is not opening the truth of the bible to doubt, but the truth of the interpretation of the bible. In essence, it is suggesting, perhaps this is what was meant by this passage instead of this other commonly understood reading. If you have attended IBS before, this is very much in the world of the author. Usually these are minority interpretations.
Let me give an example:
What happens is that the CFer is exposed to a take on the passage that is not covered in church or elsewhere. When this happens, there is a strong tension, because one is taught in church (or elsewhere) that that is the correct way to read it. It seems to suggest that any other way is false or wrong. Yet CF is suggesting that this alternative reading: 1. might be valid 2. there are things that can be learnt from it. 2a. in terms of how to read the bible for oneself. 2b. in terms of how to apply the particular passage to one's life.
So the ideal CG should be one where the Bible is studied as a text, with as much information about the text as possible to achieve as holistic an understanding about the text studied for oneself. Rather than just relying on that which has been taught in the past. Obviously here there is some sort of danger for too subjectivised a reading and potential for heresy. One hopes that CFers possess enough understanding to be able to reject those readings that are clearly wrong e.g contradict other parts of the Bible. For other readings that do not contradict, nor do they conform, the hope is that the individual CFers can be exposed to it, see if anything is there to be gained, to decide whether to accept the reading as reasonable.
Obviously one hopes that that which i suggested earlier, pushing on the application to most of life will also be done. But the solid reality is that we have limited CG time and brain energy and something must be prioritised. So the tension between the two ways is really one of priority rather than objective good/bad because I think both are quite uncontroversially good.
So that brings us to what is going on now. As of now, and in the past, the staff workers engage with the CGLs at CBS. So... there is a first step of whether the CGLs are able to "absorb" and engage with the alternate interpretation(s). Then there is the second step of letting the CGL choose how to lead his/her CG which may involved the alternate interpretation or not. As it stands, and to my limited knowledge, alternate interpretations are "suggested" in a minority of CGs.
Due to this empirical fact, perhaps the way our bible study is done, especially for the CG guide should be changed to reflect the realities rather than the ideal. Honestly, there is already reflection of the reality (e.g the guiding questions for supposedly pure IBS). The question, is then, perhaps to what degree ought one strive towards the ideal rather than maximise the reality, especially when they differ.

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:59 PM|

Monday, March 12, 2018

[[]]

So, recess week just passed. Where did it go? lol. was fun and reasonably meaningful, but now im feeling the societal pressure to have "done more work".

The sentence above was written... somewhere at the start of week 7.

Now that week 7 is over, I'm really enjoying this sunday night/ monday early morning. The rest that comes after work is so much more enjoyable as opposed to boring.

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:50 AM|

[[]]

Surely there is something to be said for seeing someone online, really wanting to talk to them and yet not doing so.

Maybe someone else can say it.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:44 AM|

Saturday, March 3, 2018

[[]]

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-do-i-know-if-i-really-love-jesus

Its been awhile since I did posts such as this, because of... reasons.

Anyway, I thought this article was really good. The part that really hit me was the you must obey the commandments yet not that kind of must. What is that "kind of must" that is not what is suggested by God? It is the "kind of must" that does it out of duty only or because it is the right thing to do only. Instead, it is love that guides the "must". For if you love me (Jesus) (you will) keep my commandments.

It kinda makes things simple doesn't it? Keeping commandments is not something that can be done without reason (not talking about the metaphysical possibility, but like it is not something that one tends to do without reason). And this reason is rather important.

So the attempt to willpower my way into keeping commandments and fight sin is a futile attempt alone. For there is no love for Jesus that undergirds it, especially if it is for like some other thing like "paradise" or "other people" that motivates it at its core. For sure looking forward to heaven and having other people encourage is important and ought to be done, but that cannot be core. The core must really be love for Jesus, hence, keep commandments. Theres a few counterfactuals here I reckon.

If one loves Jesus, one keeps Jesus's commandments (because one loves Jesus).
If one doesn't love Jesus, keeping commandments is futile (that is what the rich young man case shows and, I reckon, Pharisees)
I suggest that without a love for Jesus, one cannot perfectly keep the commandments (I mean, love the Lord your God with all your heart all your mind, soul and strength).
This means that willpowering to keep commandments ultimately falls short, like so far short. At most it can be a good "first step", but it should no where near be the aim to strive for. For the aim to strive for is to love God more than one loves sin and in so doing, one desires God more than one desires sin and hence, one acts for God rather than acting for sin.
What function then, does forcing oneself not to act for sin do? I think it signals some sort of commitment to not sin? Possibly to love God? And of course one will war with Sin even if one loves God in these mortal bodies, but I think it is the satisfaction derived out of it reduces the satisfaction of sin such that even if done, it is alot less desirable and all.
I wonder what implication does this have for sin fighting strategies. Like at the core yknow. Because it cant be tying yourself to the mast when the siren sings, but listening to a more beautiful song. Tying yourself to the mast when the siren sings just makes yourself desire the siren more, methinks.
For heaven is which song we dance to, yknow, how do you dance to that on heaven when all you have been listening to is the siren's song on earth and holding yourself rigidly in place so as to not dance to it?

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:04 AM|