The creatures I lovingly made would ALL live longer and happier lives. If I claimed to have a plan for each and every one (shame on me), I would give them all a fair shot where trillions would at least survive infancy.

If I endulged in a bit of entrapment and tempted them into sin, I would hope my wrath would not be so severe so as to become inherited by future generations.

I would actually wish my little creations would write a book more worthy of me.

Behold my ego.

In a modern world where an estimated 25,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes (source: http://www.poverty.com/) and by the time you’ve read this, another person has also died to add to this faceless, yet horrific statistic, then I really think that extravagance should not be glorified at all, but should be regarded as a source of real shame.

Don’t get me wrong, hard work and genius should be rewarded (there’s a case to argue that genius is in itself a reward), but when we have people – mostly children – dying every few seconds, then there is no way our species should be content with the way we live our lives.

I suppose extravagance is a matter of perspective, there are those that own private cruise ships with built in helipads to those that are victims to designer brands – and of course Mr Ferrari guy.

It’s at this point that I recognise that I am to some degree a righteous hypocrite, and appreciate that something external – and dare I say internal – moulds us into this way of behaving.

I too often crave for the latest smartphone and the gimmicks that I mistakenly think will improve my life (yes, I’m with down with the latest Facebook updates, but forget the last time I spent quality time with my real friends. That’s another story though).

Even worse, when I travelled to China, along with the rest of the wave, I walked past badly disfigured beggar children laying face first in the floor and – other than tangible pangs of guilt – not tried to help more than throwing some loose change.  In an ideal world, nobody – especially children – should be in this situation. Anybody who witnessed this should have cared for that child as if they were their own son or brother. Instead, these kids are by in large ignored and avoided very much like excrement on the pavement.

So, I’m no true Samaritan.

But I do recognise how tragic it all is and that we can’t continue to condone a society that fosters greed, rewards with gratuitous extravagance and forgives wanton waste while at the forgotten end, innumerable lives – each so precious – are lost forever.

We live in thin skinned, soft and fragile bodies that are susceptible to a multitude of disease and assorted ailments. Our eyesight is poor in comparison to birds and unlike Icarus, we can not fly. We can’t breathe underwater nor swim as well as an overfished cod. We are physically weaker than most great apes and lack the agility of smaller apes. Even the fastest of us would be outrun by a grizzly bear. But the writers of the bible show great pride to believe that we are a fitting image of a god species. That or perhaps the man upstairs is just not a very good designer.

My point is that it is far more plausible that we created a god in our image, rather than the arrogant supposition that we are in his/hers. After all, we are capable of great love, but are also selfish,  jealous, cruel and vengeful – very much like the God of the Old Testament?
The bible and its cousin scripts claim to be irrefutably correct and all knowing – the unadulterated word of an omniscient god. Yet does it ever exceed knowledge at the time of writing?*

(*Incidentally, let’s not forget that the time of writing in the case of Jesus was – agreed by bible scholars – to have been written decades after his death. Some gospels were even written from second hand information [sigh].
I often have a ropey recollection of what happened last week, so well done to those that can write with such clarity and authority decades after the supposed events.

Furthermore, if you read a current news story written at the time of the event and you’ll still see bias and inaccuracy. Then we have multiple Chinese whispers style translations and calculated editing at the whim of an obvious agenda. God’s word indeed.

So is it not flirting with the edge of reason to put so much blind faith in text that was written decades after purported events?)

(That was a big bracketed section.)

Does the bible speak at length about the dinosaurs that predated Adam & Eve? Did it tell us about photosynthesis, electricity or gravity? Does it talk about the sun or the universe with any breadth or accuracy? Does it tell us anything that men at the time didn’t already think they knew? At times, it prefers instead to allocate precious space to the intricate and mundane.

“If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.”

This would be apt in any decent ‘how to treat your slave and brutally murder livestock’ handbook, but it actually appears in Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32.

And in any case, why does the good book deal with any matters of slavery, rather than condemn it for the inhumane industry that it surely is.

Here’s another gem from the bible:

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Seems fair enough… right?

Rather strangely, Mr God also loves animal sacrifices and is very particular about the whole unnecessarily gruesome procedure.

Leviticus Chapter 5:

‘If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

‘Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean-whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground-even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

‘Or if he touches human uncleanness-anything that would make him unclean-even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty.

‘Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil-in any matter one might carelessly swear about-even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.

‘When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

‘If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the Lord as a penalty for his sin-one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. He is to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not severing it completely, and is to sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

That’s just plain weird.

Similarly, God does a lot of unusual things as is apparently his inimitable way. Many are documented in the website whywontgodhealamputees.com, which is a very good read. Another interesting point concerns the charming Jesus birth story, read more about it here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god16.htm, but basically the story goes that Herod ordered the death of every child under the age of two in Bethlehem and nearby villages. It was because of the King’s beef with Jesus and God knew this would happen, but did nothing to stop it. That’s a bit cruel isn’t it?

While I’m on a rant, I came across some anti-evolution, pro-creationist Christians at a London underground. They were handing out propaganda in the form of leaflets that described evolution as a lie and creationism as fact.

Of course, evolution is ‘just a theory’. But it is one that is based on science and a lot of thinking and research, whereas creationism is based on an ancient and questionable text.

Evolution is the best theory we have about the origin of life. It certainly beats the whole Adam and Eve farce and the earth being several thousand years old, with man appearing on it a handful of days after.
Even IF the theory of evolution is wrong (and I don’t think it is), creationism obviously shouldn’t be used to plug the gap. If evolution is wrong, then give us a more credible theory, please!

With creationism, as with most aspects of religion, you are given the conclusion in a handy contradictory laden book and forced to search and scrounge for the evidence to support it.
With evolution and other forms of sensible thinking, conclusions are formed based on evidence. There’s a crucial back to front difference.

Besides, I find it hard to see why evolution isn’t feasible, even for the most devout. For example, man’s best friend – the dog, has been domesticated up to 30,000 years. More accelerated selective breeding has happened more recently and in (relatively) so few generations, you can easily see huge amounts of variation – from the lithe greyhound to the stout bulldog. Before this, they were wolves. Is it really so hard to believe that over so many more years and generations, humans evolved from something else?

And finally (phew), if evolution is not credible because life is too complex for it to have happened via evolution, you can use the same reverse argument about God. Presumably the creator – a being that must be infinitely more complex – must also have been created – something like a God could not possibly have evolved? Unfortunately, this raises more questions than answers. Questions that creationists do not answer.

Also, came across this impressive speech by a young girl called Severn Suzuki:

http://youtu.be/uZsDliXzyAY

Hung parliament, eh?
Politics has never seemed so gripping! Which I suppose is a shame as this has meant such positions of power have been reserved to those in the predisposed realms of playing in this important but convoluted world.

I’m quite big on green issues and actually think that environmental issues are infinitely more important than our selfish concerns about economy and other material issues.

Unfortunately the Green Party with its unhelpful hippy image is not really in a position to do much, despite its good intentions. Of course it’s not a terrible thing to vote for them, overall votes though not directly crucial,surely provide indication of public thought? And so, we can only hope that whoever or whatever comes into power devotes enough time and commitment into the right areas.

That was a bit off topic. I meant to write about something that – on face value – amused/horrified me and this is that there’s
a pledge to limit temperature rises/global warming by 2 degrees celsius within a certain time frame…

Wait, is it me, or is this something that really isn’t within our immediate control? It’s not like global warming is comparable to a central heating system that you can dictate with some kind of handy thermostat. Oh, it’s getting a bit hot nowadays – a whole 1.4 degrees increase. Oh, I know, let’s cool it down a notch in time for the two year deadline.

A vague and unrealistic notion like this seems flimsy and therefore ludicrous (again, despite seemingly reasonable intentions).

To me and with my limited knowledge of science (I often doodled during science classes), it’s a bit like when you pour liquid into a funnel and you misjudge it. The liquid will overflow and there’s little you can do about it. Of course multiply this exponentially on a massive global scale and you’ve got a gigantic funnel that might very well make an enormous mess. Dangerous grounds.

Somebody recently told me he watches Glenn Beck (that was enough for me to stereotype him) and then proceeded to tell me that top dogs can point to ‘the science’ and prove that global warming is a myth. This angered me somewhat. It’s no secret that statistics (‘the science’) can be used to support whatever agenda you harbour and to be fair has probably happened for both sides. I once heard of a study that definitively ’proved’ that mobile phones posed no health risks whatsoever, though the study was funded by a heavyweight in the mobile phones industry.

History has witnessed similar studies by tobacco friendly scientists refuting links between smoking and ill health. People are often too easily convinced as soon as the illusion of ‘science’ and some big numbers are bandied about.

In any case, what does the average person have to gain for not believing in global warming? Even if it doesn’t exist and we are – in the unlikely scenario – just experiencing the fluctuations of natural climate change, what harm is there to err on the side of caution?

It has echoes of Pascal’s wager about the existence of god, but is crucially different in embodying less of the ego of that particular train of thought. The Pascal wager rather deceitfully argues that it is far better to believe in god and be spared god’s anger, than be an unbeliever (atheist and our blasphemous ilk) and then fall foul of his/her/it’s potential (and notorious) wrath. Hardly strong grounds for any sort of belief, just a self concerned backing of the no lose situation. In any case, belief inglobal warming – whether it is true or not is surely a wager well worth taking – even for sceptics? It’s a no-brainer. If indeed global warming isn’t man made then in trying (in vain) to avert it, we have lost very little. If, however, on strong evidence it is – then we have much, much more to lose. And if we have failed to do enough about it, then future generations will bear the brunt of our misplaced and irrevocable conviction. That’s a burden much too heavy to carry.

“He’s an ugly type of fighter, he tries to lean on you, tries to brawl and comes
out with a really hairy chest that gets matted and is disgusting.
“The size I am, I sort of come up to his chest and apparently the word around
the campfire is that he doesn’t smell too sweet.
“Hopefully he runs a cold tap over himself or someone hoses him down outside
before he comes in.” – David Haye

While a lot of people might find him disrespectful (well, let’s face it – he
is), I think boxing needs people like him to reignite the dwindling embers of a
once glorious heavyweight division. Anyway, I did think Haye could get a result
and went out on a limb and put five whole pounds on a points victory.
He fought a near perfect fight, staying out of trouble and doing enough to win
most of the rounds. He even managed to rock the giant in the final round and
leave punters wondering what could have been had he been more adventurous (or
hadn’t allegedly damaged his hand) earlier on. In fact the result could have
gone either way, but I think justice was served as the more skilled fighter won
and I got my £10 bumper prize.

Another mouth-watering, pants moistening fight involved
Manny Pacquiao
against the very respectable Miguel Cotto. The Pacman is generally regarded as
pound for pound the best fighter in the world and although Money Mayweather
might have something to say about that, he simply blew away Cotto in a savage
one-sided encounter. Cotto was the bigger man (as was De La Hoya and Hatton
before him), but he was gobbled up by Pacquiao and bullied by the smaller
Filipino from about the second round onwards, culminating in a 12th round TKO.
You have to feel sorry for Cotto, who started brightly and was brave throughout,
but he just couldn’t keep up with the ferocious pace of his opponent, who must
clearly have been eating some kind of power pills! :p

And C4 have won their last five matches in a row. We started with comfortable
wins against the second team and Hughes Hall, before following it up with two
league wins against St John’s 2nds and Trinity Hall 2nds. In between that, we
beat Robinson 1sts 4-2 in the first round of the cuppers competition:

Robinson 2 – 4 CCCC (8.11.09)
Although we’ve come close in the past, this was our first win over a first team
and it came in the Cuppers competition.

I can’t remember much of what happened as it was over two weeks ago…

I reffed the first half as had played two matches the day before and against the
run of play, we went 1-0 down. We responded well though and we took control
ofthe game again. Minh won a penalty and Shu dispatched it with consumate ease.
Chung scored our second in off the cross bar – it bounced across the line and
out again, but their linesman was honest enough to award it.

We scored again (can’t remember how!) before they got their second goal to make
it 3-2 and set up a tense finale. However, a scuffed shot from Luong went
straight into Shu’s midriff/groin area, but the player of the season controlled
it well and rifled in from close range to seal the game.

Trinity Hall 2nds 2 – 4 CCCC (15.11.09)
Lewis, Wingo, Dang, Frankie, Shaf, Chung, Be, Shu, Jake, Luong, Minh
Subs: Squeeky, Oleg

Only our second league match and we faced a surprisingly resilient Tit Hall
side.

The first half was dominated by C4 and we kept them quiet while creating good
chances at the business end. Despite being far the more dangerous team, our
first goal was laced with a plentiful dose of fortune. Minh whipped in looping
corner which was probably goal bound anyway, but the keeper could only get a
hand to it and help it on its way to make it 1 – 0 to the visiting team. Be and
particularly Shu had bossed the midfield, and indeed a measured through ball
from the Japanese maestro put Luong through on goal. For once, the flag stayed
down and he raced through to steer it in at the far corner to double our lead.

With a healthy two goal margin, perhaps we relaxed a little as a Trinity Hall
midfielder picked up a loose ball from midfield and was allowed to advance
before firing a swerving shot from about 30 yards. Lewis had it covered for most
of the way, but misjudged it and it was allowed to squirm out of his grasp and
into our net. The shot was from some distance and destined for Lewis’s gloves,
but it was a mistake to give the player space to shoot in the first place.

We felt a little hard done by, but picked oursleves up again. Not long after,
Frankie controlled a lofted clearance right into the danger area and Luong beat
the offside trap to round the keeper to restore the two goal cushion. However,
we let them back into the game again with a loose back pass that allowed their
striker to lift a finish over our keeper to make it 2 – 3 and that was how we
went into half time.

We made some changes with Oleg coming on and alas the second half was a
scrappier affair. With the combination of an outrageous long throw and oyur gung
ho approach, we made it difficult for ourselves.

Although we had the much better of the chances, with Oleg, Minh and Shu all
coming close, we had to wait until the 85th minute to make it safe. And again it
was the effervescent Shu who finished off a strong run with a finish from a
tight angle.

It was a tough match and we definitely deserved the win. However, the overly
musclebound Chung went off at about half time with a fractured metatarsal and
will be out of action for up to six weeks.
with the score at 1 – 3 at halftime.

]]> http://luongface.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/versus/feed/ 12 luongface http://luongface.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/preacher/ http://luongface.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/preacher/#comments Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:59:52 +0000 luongface http://luongface.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/preacher ]]>