I don't believe in religions; so I'm immune from all those so-called teachings from the holy books. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, is what I would describe as a "very strong believer". She goes to St Simon Church every Sunday without fail. Some years ago, she tried to convince me to be a practising Roman Catholic, i.e. to go to church every Sunday. But of course she has long since given up hope on me. I'm just beyond help, you see.
Mia is what I would describe as the fence-sitter. Apparently, she does believe a bit in the Catholic God. But she doesn't really believe all those chantings—I think it's what they call "speaking in tongue", or something like that—when the church goers are "touched" by the Holy Spirit. I must remember to ask her if she believed that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus.
I thought there couldn't be any harm to "give" my JJ a religion. So I sort of played along with the baptism thing when she was about 6 months old. We were kinda late, since I was given to understand that usually the baptism ritual is carried out within the first month or two of the baby's delivery. Anyway, Mia, JJ and my mother-in-law go to church every Sunday together. I decided to opt out since donkey years ago, I think by now I must have tonnes of "unwashed" sins!
I was talking to Mia about the Holy Bible just a couple of days ago. I said contrary to what most christians say, I see the Bible as an imperfect document. In fact, most, if not all, of the holy books are imperfect as far as I am concerned. Jesus, for some strange reasons, enjoyed speaking in parables. I fail to see why couldn't he had simply spoken in a plain ordinary language—y'know, like being normal?
The Bible contains mostly things which are ambigious and subject to many numerous different interpretations. And because of the many possible interpretations, I think we can no longer be sure of what's the original intention of the authors. For example, I don't really know what to make of the story about Noah and the Ark. Is that to be taken literally? Or is that some kind of symbolic story which is supposed to have a deeper meaning to it? When we read about how Jesus fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and fish, and still had 12 baskets of left-over after that, was that supposed to have been taken literally?
There are so many possible interpretations of the Bible, and it is no surprise that so many people have come up with their own "churches". They each have their own interpretations—they're slightly different here and there.
So although still using the same Bible, they start to convince some people to join their "churches". Usually, the congregations would start in the housing estates with small prayer groups. They would then rent the upper floors of shophouses. At the same time, they collect monetary contributions from their members, as much as 10% of the incomes—evidently something called tidings, which I was told is provided for in the Bible. Before long, they will actually buy a premises. Then buy a land, and eventually build their own churches. In KK alone, we have so many churches around; some still occupying the upper floors of shophouses, and some already rich enough to have their own churches as in the real "church" building constructed on their own lands.
The beauty of it all is that they are very good in recruiting new members—people who're willing to sacrifice everything for the leader. I always find myself amazed anew each time I see people actually believe in these new churches. I'm having trouble believing in my own Roman Catholic church, let alone these other churches.
That's why I could only shake my head when a man who's been dead for 13 months was not buried; rather was kept in his coffin and placed in the living room of a rented house here in Penampang. Each day his believers held prayer sessions throughout those 13 months while waiting for his resurrection. But of course he has remained dead up to now. And it was probably a blessing in disguise that the police finally forced themselves into the house to stop all the nonsense. [The Star]
BUT! Keeping an open mind, even if he had resurrected from his death, I think he would've died again very quickly the second time due to suffocation. He must have forgotten to instruct his followers not to bundle him up in blankets and plastic wrappers. How was he supposed to breathe that way? Some people are just so bad in planning!
27 comments:
Oh! by the way, those of you who're curious to know, the name of his church was "Church With No Walls".
Fancy name, huh?
I think this is the danger of all religions, becoming almost cult-like about it and taking everything literally.
My Dad, an Atheist, was raised Catholic, and was forced to attend private catholic schooling where the nuns are the teachers. His private life was one where his father thought it was ok to tie him to a pole in the basement and whip him with a belt for punishment.
His mother, yes my grandmother, was an alcoholic,
and the private school he attended did not accept opinions outside of what they taught. it was indoctrination if you ask me, and nuns were allowed to hit children on their knuckles with a ruler if they disobeyed.
I can totally see why my dad rejects all religion, he blames religion for all the pain and suffering in the world, and made sure that as a child I understood exactly how he feels about it.
I was taught that once we die that is the end, it is over, and we merely get eaten by the worms in the ground. No after-life, none of that. Growing up I always knew this was not what I believed, and I always had wished for something more.
As an adult I am actually thankful I was not brought up in a religious household because it has given me the freedom, and clear head, to choose for myself.
I did not grow up with all of the different rituals and beliefs that most religious households have, so it has given me a different perspective and way of viewing religion.
Your post reminds me of all the things about religion that my dad hated: mostly the cult-like mentality people tend to adopt.
I cannot and will not ever become a person seen as "religious", and I border more along the lines of skepticism. I educate and read for myself, and practice and believe what I see as good for me spiritually or mentally, but will never follow what others tell me I should do.
Yes, I have read the Quran. I have read many books and taken classes about Islam, but many of the rituals or ways of dressing or superstitions that many Muslims have are not something I will ever adopt. To me these things are not needed to love God, we must be good people, be modest because it benefits us, and have respect for all life. This is how I see Islam..
All the other stuff is just a way for people to feel connected, or pious, or like they are doing the right thing.
As far as the people who kept the body praying for a resurrection in your post, that to me is just ignorance. People who have let the church mold their lives and their minds. I see a fine line between the super religious and brain-washing.
it reminds me of a case here in the United States where a family with a child sick with cancer refused treatment because they said they wanted to pray the cancer away. The child died and now a child abuse case is pending.
I guess they never thought that the cancer treatment itself, and evolution of science, is God's way of saving us.
============
There was a man drowning in the Ocean, and a ship came by to save him, but the man said "no thanks, God will save me." A few minutes later another ship passed and the guy said " no thanks, God will save me." Another ship passed and he said the same thing. The man ended up drowning and went to heaven. When he saw God he asked him "God, why didn't you save me?" and God said "I sent you three ships, you dummy!"
:)
Normally there are 2 subjects, Malaysia politics and religion, which I make it a point to avoid when blogging or taking part in internet posting.
However after reading your personal experience which in some ways are similar to mine except that I am an Anglican while you are a Roman Catholic church member, I can not resists my usual 2 sen comments.
The new "churches" blossoming all over the country are what normal churches classify them as "independent churches".Their followers were former members of normal churches like the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Basel Mission etc. which were operating in Sabah for upteen years before these new "independent churches" were set up.
It is a known fact that normal churches are losing a lot of their members, especially the younger ones, to these "new churches".A Roman Catholic church council member lamented that a lot of their young church members have gone over to the "new churches" which offer more attractive and interesting youth programmes and activities.
Unheard of ten years ago,apart from the organist, it is now very common for churches to have a 4-piece band comprising of a lead guitarist, a bassist, a rythmn guitarist and a drummer to provide the musical backing to the hymns being sung at the churches.
Churches, be they normal or those of the "new churches" are very rich because they don't need to pay income taxes.Sunday or church collections are exempted from tax.A non-Roman Catholic church I know collects around RM20,000 weekly from its 4 church services every Sunday.Priests in this particular church are paid the same salary as those in the private sector (RM1,700 starting salary for those newly-ordained priest after they graduated)with free housing included.
Recognition-wise,unheard of before in the old days, Bishops or heads of the normal churches are now normally bestowed with the datukship by the State Government.
You are right that the "new churches" are mushrooming first in shophouses all over the country.Within a few years they can afford to either buy over the shophouse building or construct their own church building elsewhere.Whether these are cult-like or not, depends on which particular "new church" one is referring to.Definately the "Church With No Walls" is one of them!
Socrates29 over and out.
Sarah,
This reminds me of a presentation during one of our Rotarian meetings some time ago when a psychiatrist gave a bit of insight on some mental conditions.
According to him, some people suffer some sort of mental disorder which renders the sufferer to really hear sounds and voices and see things which are not really there. It could be the case here, i.e. the self-proclaimed "prophet" was really convinced that he will be resurrected somehow; that he had no intention to mislead his followers; that he truly believed in his heart that he's a prophet!
But of course the thing that is harder to explain is the fact that there are people who actually believed him!
Thank you for sharing, Socrates29. RM20,000 per week is quite a big sum! That is like a gross revenue of RM80,000 per month. Even if they can get RM50,000 net of expenses, that is still good money!
But, Socrates29, since you mentioned about the priest's salary, I've been meaning to ask this question: Do priests donate a portion of their incomes to the church too? I mean still obeying the tidings principle? Anybody knows anything about this would care to share with us all? I'm raising this question because I've always been curious on the expensive tastes of the Pope. He wears designer clothings, very expensive shoes and sunglasses, and he has an expensive taste in cars too. I'm sure his income, however much that is, could be useful to help a lot of poor people.
It is tithing, giving 10% of income back to God. Priest do that too as they have a salary.
Some mega church (obviously more collections) pays their pastors handsomely and that is not wrong. You don't have to live miserable and poor when you are a pastor.
I know of a pastor of a mega church in Singapore drives a Jaguar. Nothing wrong with that as long as he got his money legally.
I am not so sure whether the priests who are earning a handsome salary like normal salaried people gives back some of it to the church.
Anglican priests or pastors live normal lives like the rest of us as they have families and commitments to look after.They buy their own cars for their own personal use.Sometimes their wives work also for the church as teachers or help out in the church's office and are paid a normal salary like those in the private sector based on their educational qualifications and work experience.
As far as I know, Roman Catholic priests are only given an allowance and no salary. The allowance is just something for them to use for their daily requirements as lodgings and transportation are all taken care of by the church.
Your Roman Catholic pope is also like our Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury. He is always attired in nicely designer cut religious robes, travels first class and usually have an entourage with him wherever he goes visiting other countries.Of course,all these are paid for by the church.
Socrates29 over and out.
Anonymous (10:32 PM),
Please excuse my ignorance - I did not even bother to check the word in a dictionary.
There is of course nothing wrong with priests earning fixed salaries for the works they're doing, i.e. they don't have to be poor. However, it seems odd somehow - at least odd to me personally - if they earn big salaries and live their lives in luxury. "Living the life of a pauper" and "living the life of the rich" are two extremes.
If the priest is earning so well to the extent that he can afford a Jaguar in a place like Singapore, one has to wonder if the church is over-paying the priest. I can only imagine that the main bulk of the money came from the donations from the members. Shouldn't that money be used for the purpose of the church, such as spreading the teaching to the rural areas, building more churches, sponsoring mission schools etc, rather than enriching the priests?
So, while I agree that the priests don't have to live poor, there is a good argument that they need not be rewarded with so much wealth as well?
In Sabah, I know some of the church's VIPs actually gave away their "richness" to the church, e.g. their families' lands in their villages for the purpose of building new churches. There is no way I can tell what's really happening in the hearts of these priests, but the act of giving away their lands does reflect, to a certain extent, their sacrifice and commitment to the church.
Socrates29,
I'm not speaking for the Roman Catholic Church (and I'm not qualified to speak on its behalf anyway), but I can understand the "bodyguards", travelling first class etc, if only for the sake of image. I suppose people like the Pope are as good as the prophet himself, and hence treated like a king.
On the other extreme, we had Mother Teresa, who gave away everything she had for the church. I was told that she won the Nobel prize and she gave away the money to the church in pursuance of its missions. In fact, she lived her life solely for the church as well. An amazing woman and such a big sacrifice for what she believe in. Unless if I'm mistaken, she lived her life like a pauper too.
Socrates29,
I'm not speaking for the Roman Catholic Church (and I'm not qualified to speak on its behalf anyway), but I can understand the "bodyguards", travelling first class etc, if only for the sake of image. I suppose people like the Pope are as good as the prophet himself, and hence treated like a king.
On the other extreme, we had Mother Teresa, who gave away everything she had for the church. I was told that she won the Nobel prize and she gave away the money to the church in pursuance of its missions. In fact, she lived her life solely for the church as well. An amazing woman and such a big sacrifice for what she believed in. Unless if I'm mistaken, she lived her life like a pauper too.
This is a huge dilemma within the Christian churches in the U.S., regarding how much money priests are making.
We have some churches that have the priest and their sermons televised for the entire country to see. They also sell their books/CD's/sermons on t.v. for all to buy.
They have the "mega church" and are by far very rich people. This is a HUGE controversy for Christians when many believe it is improper as a good Christian to be so extravagant.
I think it is all lunacy and these priests, although having a good message at times, have commercialized Jesus..
Call it a co-incident or could it be some extra-forces at work or some thing else but this very morning my church's pastor and 2 other parishioners called me for breakfast.
You see I have never in my life had breakfast or even a drink with my church's pastor before but somehow he suddenly called through one of my church's friends to have breakfast with them this morning near my workplace. Maybe they are snooping the blogs here and know we are talking about churches, priests and their earnings!
Over coffee,I took the rare opportunity to hear from the horse's (or rather the priest's) mouth whether he channeled back some of his salary back to the church. I am sure priests don't lie one because he told me yes, he does channeled some of his earnings back to the church's coffers.
Socrates29
Sarah,
Quite frankly, I'm OK if the churches are raising funds, even if they go to the extent of "commercializing" Jesus. So I have no issue with them selling CDs/books/sermons on tv etc.
But the thing that I would question is the necessity of expensive lifestyle of the priests. If the money they raise are utilised for, say, building new churches, or mission schools. charities etc, then I'm OK. I'm not sure I would feel the same way if the money is used to give the priests a luxurious lifestyle.
Socrates29,
Thanks for sharing this info with us.
I'd just like to add a bit about that part where you said: "I am sure priests don't lie..."
I'm not trying to question your beliefs, but don't bet on this particular one, my friend. If the priest is a human being, then he does lie every now and then. You just have to trust me on this. I know people!
Cornelius,
If priests do lie every now and then then it is between them and God up there.I have no reason to doubt my pastor's words as he is a man of the holy words and book.
Anyway the reason why he and the other 2 parishioners called me for breakfast was to seek my help to assist them in the church's youth development program and activities which they are hoping to start soon amongst the youths of the church.
Cornelius,
I think a priest's salary or income should commensurate with their work load. The bigger the church, the more work and responsiblity he has to shoulder. Then he should be rightfully rewarded accordingly.
If a successful businessman or lawyer or engineer or surveyor drives an expensive car, we accept the fact that he is successful and he deserves it. Why should a pastor be different? Why can't a lawyer or surveyor donates his income to help the poor? Why must it be the pastor to help the poor?
Anyway, besides salary, sometimes the pastors are given gift out of appreciation by the church members.
I do feel it is not wrong for pastors to enjoy a good life as long as they did not misuse church funds for personal use.
Anonymous,
True what you opined here that priests should be rewarded by way of salary compensation for eabling to gather a large and big church congregation and members to his parish.
Like salesmen I sometimes feel that priests especially those from the "independent churches" have certain quotas to achieve within their community and area.
The more "souls" not sales (sorry for the intended pun) they "saved" not sell (again my apology for the pun here) the more they will be compensated for their achievement.
Due to changes in the world today, entering the priesthood in a non-Catholic church is no longer like in the past, a calling from the above or a vocation. Due to the perks in the form of salaries, housing, car loans,etc. it becomes more like a professional career.
I have seen experienced priests, one having even reached the position of a dean (second in rank to a diocese bishop) resigning because he was not selected to be the bishop when the vacancy arisen.He quit not only because of this because there are other underlying reasons which I know of after talking to the church elders.
To put it simply, the non-Catholic churches have become commercialize as what Cornelius have mentioned here earlier.
Hi Corn, this comment is totally unrelated to your post but just wanted to say hi and hope you're all geared up for BIM next Sunday.
Shall be rooting for you as I'll be volunteering on the day. Best of luck to you and Mia (if she's participating).
Anonymous (October 3, 2009 8:37 AM),
Thanks for your comment. But first, may I suggest that you use a nickname for easier identification.
Before I proceed any further, let me hasten to remind my readers that my comments here are not on behalf of the Catholic Church. They are solely of my own, and I accept that it may not be the correct or popular opinion.
I think the comparison you're making here is not quite right in the sense that in the case of the lawyer or engineer or surveyor, there is that over-lapping professional as well as financial interests in the equation. But in the case of the church, it should be more about the spiritual interest.
We see that when the legal firm does not get enough cases, it will eventually be non-viable to be in operation, and the lawyer may have to close shop. On the other hand, if they're able to get many cases, they may make a lot of money and all the partners earn big fat salaries.
But for the priest, his commitment to the church is supposed to be more for spiritual, rather than monetary reasons. It is in this sense that I admire Mother Teresa because she absolutely gave her life for humanity.
I'm not suggesting that priests shouldn't have any income at all. All I'm saying is whether it is right for them to earn handsome salaries and enjoy luxuries from the revenues of the churches. If we are to adopt the "business" approach for the church elders, shouldn't Mother Teresa be rewarded with $100,000 per month? For I'm sure that she must have saved so many more people throughout all those years; demonstrated the love of God and touched so many lives until the day she died. Did she deserve much more than a Jaguar?
When priesthood becomes a "career", and hinges on the monetary or material rewards for its attraction, it becomes very easy to go astray from the true intention of the role. A priest should be a priest, not a businessman seeking to draw a huge salary and accumulate wealth from the resources of the church. I'm fairly convinced that many of those who put some money into the collection bag during the congregation are much poorer than the priest. Are we supposed to tell them that the money that they donated is for achieving the goals of the church - whatever they are - or to reward the priest handsomely for a job well done?
As to your question about why a lawyer or surveyor do not donate to help the poor, well, I can't speak on their behalf. But what I can say is that they did not pledge to help, i.e. there is no obligation on their part. The priest, however, is slightly different. He has pledged his life to the service of the church; and that pledge is supposed to be independent of whatever monetary rewards he gets from the church. Because of that pledge, he is obligated to perform his responsibilities to the best of his ability.
Shan,
Thanks for your faith in me, my friend. Since you're rooting for me, now I'm even more inspired to at least complete the distance! And yes, Mia will be running too, though she's only doing the half marathon this year. Who knows, if she can survive this time, she might want to consider doing the full course next year?
I've been having a bad flu all week long, but otherwise everything has been going smoothly up to now. I have successfully avoided any injury, and I hope to keep it that way till the marathon day.
I wrote to Andrew just 2 days ago and was informed that they're providing bananas beginning from KM15 and subsequent 10km intervals; plus power gel at KM30. So I suppose I'm really going ahead with my plan to not bring any of those with me during the run.
And remember what I told you when I signed up in March? Well, I'm sticking to my plan to let the Kenyans win this marathon. We Sabahans are very hospitable people, you know.
Shan,
I am joining the BIM for the first time this year. As such, I am concerned in a few areas. One is water. Although there will be water stations along the route, I was told that last year the organisers re-used the paper cups strewn on the road. This is not very hygienic and in view of the current H1N1 pandemic, can you assure us all that all cups used would be new?
scute,
Just to share a bit on water stations as far as BIM is concerned. As you know, this will only be the second time it's being organised, so there's only last year's event to compare.
What I experienced was that the water stations then were well organised. Of the times that I decided to stop for drinks, there were enough cups. However, I don't know if they actually picked up those cups disposed of by other runners and used them back. I must say that if indeed that's true, I'm extremely surprised! Personally, I don't believe that they're so cheap skate to the extent that they'd save on paper cups for this purpose.
The only disappointment, at least to me, in last year's event was that the last water station along Jln Tg Lipat had insufficient cups, although they had enough 100PLUS in big bottles. The result was something like the Penang Bridge Marathon 2008 case where runners drank directly from the bottles. I myself took a new bottle, opened it up and drank a few sips and left the bottle there for other runners. My guess is that others must have had no choice but to drink directly from that bottle too.
Apparently, Kenny Sia experienced a bit of this problem too. Check out his post.
I think the slower runners will be the ones facing more of these "no cups" problem.
However, I actually called up Tanya at BIM recently to highlight about the "no cups" problem. And she said that they're "looking into it." I hope she meant what she said.
So, Tanya, if you're reading this, make sure the last few stations please. Those are the most important ones. I'd really be disappointed when I can't get any drinks at the time when I need them the most! Even the Standard Chartered KL Marathon screwed up on those ending stations (in their case, I think they ran out of drinks). I hope BIM will learn from that mistake.
Hi Corn hope you feel better soon and in case I don't get a chance to see you during reg pack collection, best of luck :)
After speaking to and observing other runners from last year, I found that most, even the halfers, brough along an extra powergel tube just in case. No harm?
Hi Scute, also best of luck to you! Re paper cups I'm afraid I can't comment as I'm not part of the organizing committee this year but I do know that everyone seems to know what to expect after our learning experience last year and that volunteers are encouraged to guide runners who stop at water stations away from the collection area so as not to hinder faster runners coming in to grab and run.
Take care you guys and have a great Sunday and preparation week.
Hi Corn,thanks for reminding me of this very common concern...H2O.
its definitely been addressed this year - the problem was due mostly to distribution of the cups - some stations did have more cups than they needed and some were short, particularly the drinks stations along the 10km route where everyone wants their drinks. To rectify this , we have recalculated the distribution and it'll be a lot better this year I'm sure.
we will also have cold sponges in all the 8 drinks atations on the soute route. Drinks and sponges will also be at the stadium at the finish, as well as 100plus and Milo sampling stations..so I think all the concerns and shortcomings from 2008 have not only been looked into but also all sorted!!
BTW..BIM 2010 will be on Easter Sunday 4th April 2010...simply becos ther year end running calendar is too crowded..Penang, Singapore, Bangkok, Angkor Wat etc are all bunched up there..and we'll be the first marathon of the year in the M'sia/S'pore region.
see u all on 11th and good luck!
Shan,
Yes, I noticed many runners had those little pouch bags around their waists. But I'd still prefer not to bring anything lah, especially now that Andrew has kindly given his assurance that they're organised the water stations well this year. I'm just too stubborn bah... HAHAHA!
Now the next thing I really need to do is to get in touch with Suchen. Last year, he took the photos of all the runners when they crossed the finish line. But of over a thousand runners, it had to be me whose photo was not taken when crossing the finish line. So sayang lah, Shan, that was the very first time I participated in a marathon. Sigh.
Andrew,
Thank you for your reassurance, my friend. At least now we will have one thing less to worry about.
After the run this morning, we grouped up together and talked about next Sunday. Already Dr Helen is making arrangements for a celebration dinner that night. I told her to count me in even though I'm not sure if I would still be able to walk by then. Never mind about walking, I'm not even sure if I'll be able to finish the distance... hehehe.
And Oh! not that I am a wine drinker, but I don't mind to buy a bottle from you. But give us good discounts lah.
Several people have asked me the surprising questions:
"Who is Andrew? How is he connected to the Borneo International Marathon?"
I thought everyone should know Andrew by now, but obviously I was wrong.
Andrew Voon is the Director of Championship Sports Events Sdn Bhd, the organiser of the Borneo International Marathon for the second year running. I see him as the most qualified person to make the above reassurance for the event, as well as announcing the date of the BIM 2010.
Post a Comment