What matters more?

I often ask the question above from many angles, especially when it comes to discussing about something that is as important as in law & regulations.

First of all, be it the book of Genesis or not, humanity were created with this thing called 'freedom of choice'. A person can choose to do whatever he wants regardless of what others think for the reason that it is a personal choice. Whilst the atheists would consider this an anti-thesis of having an omnipotent Creator with control over the our lives, the fact remains that we are free to do whatever we want. God could've just stopped Adam from consuming the Forbidden Fruit and stop all the madness from unfurling since He knows what would happen yet Adam ate it anyway, for the reason that God gave him and honoured one of the most important gifts that defines humanity - freedom of will.

Without freewill, we will all be wearing the same clothes, eat the same things, say the same things, believe in the same things - a society of robots bereft of sentient AI will display this characteristic. Music will be a waste of time since they cause one to devote precious mental faculties to listening and admiring something intangible. Design of houses would be that of boxes bearing the colours of their material because beauty doesn't translate to function. Fashion doesn't exist - wasting precious fabric is unacceptable.

To me law & regulations were gazetted with the idea that they will keep society in order by encouraging goodwill amongst its citizens while deterring unwanted behaviour and at the same time ensure that everybody is treated with respect and fairness. They were created to ensure personal responsibility over the practice of free will in what is considered universally accepted norms of rights.

You are free to murder anybody you want. Just remember that the laws of the country that you commit this act might require you to die in exchange for this action. And do not forget about the lifelong grief and anger of the people important to the person you are murdering as well as the disappointment and the tears falling from those of your own as the executioner pulls the lever to open the trapdoor below you.

Are you willing to be responsible for the above? If you're not, don't do it.

Long story short, Beyonce's recently banned concert because some quarters thought she won't be able to stay within 'acceptable moral boundaries' when performing made me wonder which is more important - looking the part or doing the part?

'Pre-empting sin'. Beyonce's (rather well endowed) cleavage would cause the society to engage in sex between unmarried people, her suggestive dancing causing men to get lusty and rape women, her steamy songs causing women to go slutty.

I would like to know if the above aren't already happening without Beyonce herself stepping onto our shores. Why not ban the Internet since it's porn haven? How about imposing nation-wide curfews to make sure that nobody unmarried can meet and possibly have any chance of going to bed together?

I'm greatly insulted to branded as stupid to the point that I would become immoral from watching and listening to Beyonce (or any other musical artistes out there). Men would be fascinated with breasts as long as they exist, women would forever make love to men until the end of times, children will forever be produced regardless of whether a sexy artiste struts her stuff on the stage or not.

Boobs, the bane of humanity.

If I were to become immoral it would be because I chose to, not because somebody told me to.

My choice

The world would be a very boring place if we have to conform to certain 'standards' for things that are by all means subjective, nein?

I mean, wouldn't it be boring if everybody:

• wore the same clothes
• sport the same hairdo
• look the same
  
• talk the same way
• like the same things
• believe in the same things 
• do the same things
  

I don't drink, that much is true. The most I'd do is rice wine in cooking and no more than Anglia Shandy for leisure drinking for many reasons, one being that I have very low alcohol tolerance and most importantly, I didn't like it. It's not I like I've never tried and tested them - bit of Martell, Heineken, Carlsberg, wine, chocolate liquor - none of which I liked at all. Even if I can 'train' myself to take more alcohol, it still wouldn't help that I simply don't like it.

My friends look at me like I just said something in Arabic when they offer me a drink, asking in the most frank of manner of 'why?' I don't drink, as if something is greatly wrong for refusing. I know how nice it is to drink - you feel all warm and fuzzy, feel good and are light headed - I suppose the question is why would I not like something that is so good like this.

I have no problems with others drinking - imbibe all you want baby - but I do have problems if they end up getting alcohol intoxication or drink to the point of swimming in their own vomit. Is it worth paying so much for glasses and glasses of beer only to have it come out of your mouth at the end? I find it criminal waste when it could be put to better use, for example the month's phone bill. And even if one is filthy rich, that's still no reason to do something just because 'everybody does it'.

I have always find no issues to reject or dislike something that appeals to most people -  it's not like I feel great to be different, just that I feel it's better to be true to myself than to become what people expect of in the sense of things as subjective as personal preferences. Respect what I like/dislike and I'll do the same for you.

In short, I don't have to follow what you do. I don't have to.

The same goes for things such as faith - I have no qualms about people professing a different religion - even discuss it with me, I'm open. Just don't force your dogma on me, then we'll have a great time exchanging ideas. Ridicule what I believe when you can't substantiate your own is when I start to get a bit nasty. In fact I even like to engage atheists in their 'there is no God' evangelism (the irony...) as long as it is academic - not an avenue to rubbish me for being on the opposite side of the spectrum.

The next time I say no to a drink, I did so because I didn't want to.

My own choice.

השם האל

Every time I hear or read the words "it's God's will", I get someone annoyed.

This might raise eyebrows of people who knows me as I'm known to believe in the existence of a personal omnipresent, omnipotent God from which all of Creation began. I even spend time arguing His existence through logic - yes, it is very possible if not mandatory - with a bunch of atheists on an Internet forum. I truly believe in the existence of a Creator.

It probably sounded like blasphemy to get annoyed with "God's will" but that would be twisting the actual issues I had with that seemingly proper word of acceptance of a greater Power's control over the universe.

The main problem I had with the simple three words of submission to God's will is the abuse of it.

How many times have you heard of people who sat back and did nothing whilst watching something they could prevent from happening, muttering "it's God's will"? I shook my head whilst reading about a little girl in US who died from illness because her parents decided to rely solely on God's will, praying religiously that she will miraculously be healed because of their unshakable faith. Instead finding her medical help, they prayed and prayed. And she died.

This reminded me of the popular acronym amongst evangelists: P.U.S.H. - "pray until something happens". Until everything is out of your hands, it's bollocks. I am not preaching that the faithful should defy the will of God and abandon faith.

What I'm saying is that it becomes your will that something happens when it is still within your powers to influence it. It is only "God's will" when you have done all you can and it still failed.

That, is actual God's will.

The above turns from sad to terrifying once you mate "God's will" with self-righteousness. Religious extremists like to quote "it's God's will" at everything that they do to justify the act, be it good or absolutely ludicrous. "Doing God's work" is just as popular, especially when it comes to forcing their own interpretation of faith in God upon others.

It is God's will that almost 3000 people died on September 11th, 2001 when two planes crashed into the World Trade Centre?

The hell it is. It is the will of madmen and the hijackers who flew the plane into the towers, committing mass murder of not just people but the souls of the loved one who died that day. It was the will of God to those who fought back on the planes though as documented from phone conversations moments before the jets crashed into the symbol of world capitalism - they tried to prevent it, they failed. It is definitely not the "will of God" to those who murdered the pilots and flew them all into oblivion.

What happened to the all-important freedom of will granted to Man? God could've stopped Adam from eating the Forbidden Fruit since He knew the outcome of it being Omnipresent et al, but He allowed it to happen anyway. Adam chose to eat the forbidden fruit. He could've said "no, thanks" to the Serpent but he did anyway.

God don't make knives to stab people; people make knives stab people.

Intellectual my arse

Here it comes again - the writer's block. After a prodigious number of entry last month I'm suddenly dry again on what to write about. I suppose Jojo was right in the sense that I like to try to sound clever by writing about topics that not many would talk about in a casual conversation but I don't really think they're that deep if you look at it anyway. I mean I write about what I think and feel about things just like everybody else in their blogs - ok, I might use more big words and like to obscure direct sentences with flourishes, but that doesn't make it any more 'intellectual' on par with say, the Tolkien Society.

Still, a good friend from a sister company called this 'intellectual intercourse', something along the lines of sex, but non-physical, involving only the mind. I read once about the mind being the sexiest part of the person, seeing that with sufficient imagination the mind becomes the entire person rather than a face, two hands and feet.

What are we when removed of our body? What is the person if not the mind? When we are attracted to somebody, our biological needs (read: reproduction) will be the first to ascertain if that person is physically attractive. Can't help it, we're all programmed this way - if you aren't then either you hormones haven't kicked into overdrive or you are simply not human.

Yet, rather than follow the law of natural selection - the prettiest, the strongest, the fastest etc - humanity would ofttimes defy this unwritten rule. We choose people whom won't be called hot or strong in common standards (which are pretty subjective anyway) for the other that is less good looking but attractive.

That is simply wrong, isn't it? Darwin's theory of evolution of the strongest doesn't quite explain it when it comes to humans due to the fact that unlike animals we get to choose against natural selection, if we want to. Normally we won't but we do. Sometimes the reasons aren't even rational. Soldiers die to protect the people they love, when they were supposed to be the one to carry on. We have health care for people whom are physically challenged when in law of the jungle, they perish leaving the strong to becomes stronger.

The one thing that makes everybody common however, is the existence of this thing called the mind. Without it we are no different to the ants that march the floor to the sugarcube you missed, the mosquito that gravitate towards the warm mammal body or even the panther stalking the kudu in the shadow of the tree. Whilst you can argue that chimpanzees (whom we share 97% of genes) show some sentience traits like using simple tools to get what they want, but they will still follow what the law of natural selection mandates of them - the strongest male will mate with the female. Rarely will you see a female chimp or bonobos choose the non-dominant male if it could, if ever.

The concept of who a person is depends greatly on his or her mind, compared to the idea of what a person is that depend on the eyes and perception of beauty. John Doe chose Jane Doe because she's Jane Doe, not Jessica Doe. He might choose Jessica Doe, yes, because Jessica Doe is Jessica Doe, not Jane Doe. And for whatever reason that he chose Jane Doe rather than the more amazing Jessica Doe for example, only John Doe will know. Did he prefer the interesting conversations he had with plain Jane to the more physically attractive Jessica whom he find to be too quiet?

He's committing a foul in the game of survival, worthy of a red card and expulsion.

The most interesting part though is that he doesn't care.

Heh, I'd be lying if I were to say that I wouldn't prefer a Jessica Doe - we all do, unless you're a straight female - but will Jessica Doe remain Jessica Doe forever? Whilst the body withers with time, the mind ages like wine - the older it is the more the flavour. If there is anything that is forever - notwithstanding diamonds (even this is not true) - it's the mind. People are still amazed when they step into the Sistine Chapel and looked at the fresco of The Last Supper - the physical manifestation of Leonardo da Vinci's mind.

Perhaps Jojo's statements are echoed the most when you at it from the perspective of tragic artists with beautiful minds - the most famous of them all Vincent van Gogh. Don McLean's famous song immortalised van Gogh as a misunderstood person:

how you suffered for your sanity
how you tried to set them free.
They would not listen
they did not know how

He died from the fatal wounds of shooting himself with a revolver, then deep in depression.

I won't go to the point of being a 'misunderstood genius' if any of you actually read what was written before, how simple they are about what I feel and think. The 'big words' used are nowhere near amazing if compared to what other literary masterpieces are out there, but perhaps the audience is too weary to be burdened with more deep thoughts after a long day, preferring something that doesn't require mental aerobics.

Still, my entries are all about what I want to say anyway - sod it if nobody cares. I don't carry this attitude in real life though (as in relationship with others) but it's a pity that we all choose to believe that being simple equals being happy, thus are happy to just remain simple.

I don't begrudge people like that though, far from it. 'Whatever rocks your boat', I'd often say. But I do feel as if it's such a waste to dismiss how rich the many things that make the world the more beautiful just because it sounds or look 'intellectual'.

Damn, I'm beginning to sound like that song...