Selasa, 21 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


UBAH - What? Why?

Posted: 20 May 2013 11:41 AM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9kwKjQTWnSrMdlFRMOxo29buy6G52tOH0l3Drzd7zucDuuQEJ 

Who are the leaders in BN? They are ordinary human beings that were made leaders by the same citizens that are shouting for Ubah now. We elected them, then put them up on altars and bribed them, corrupted their minds with all kinds of gifts, we made them multimillionaires, and we gave them luxury vehicles, money for luxury bungalows, all paid holidays, jewellery and many many more. After doing all these crappy things we want to change the government. What assurances that when PR comes to power we will not repeat the same thing?

 

M. Gunasekar

Finally after two weeks we are slowing regaining our conscience and gradually becoming less racist, levelheaded and able to visualize the reality of life. Most of the 51% Malaysian citizens who voted for PR are coming to terms that the mother of all elections in the history of Malaysia is over and their dream for change is all gone.


We have ever seen such euphoria during the days leading to the general election. Many Malaysians who never cared about elections openly voiced their concerns and the need for change. But many of these first timers did not realize that cries of corruption, marginalization, discrimination, oppression actually started when on 25 Nov 2007 thousands of Indian Malaysians converged at the KLCC area, in front of the British Embassy and had a standoff with the Police for four hours.


The police shot water jets laced with chemicals and tear gas at the people, but the Indians stood steadfast and only dispersed when the police stopped. The aftermath saw hundreds arrested, and five heroes were made. The almost 50,000 crowd on Nov 25, 2007 at the KLCC area converged because of only one factor, the motivation of 1 million pounds for each Indian in Malaysia. The new Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister Department Waythamoorthy promised to sue the British Government for about 4 Trillion pounds for bringing the Indians (Tamils) to then Malaya as labourers and then leaving them high and dry, they reneged on their promise. What a pity, Indians in this country are so naïve that they easily became prey to the new BN mandore Waythyamoorthy.


He convinced everyone that he will sue the British Government and get its dues, but the BN Government tried stopping them unnecessarily and created a blunder by tear gas, arrests and spraying the people with chemical-laced water. This action by the Police had given the opposition a boost when the Indians totally rejected MIC and BN in GE 12.


Yah, I totally agree with you that the struggle during GE 13 is different from GE 12. The 51% of the citizens that voted for PR wanted change of government and for most of them, they didn't care who the future PM is, and just want change. They are fed up with our country going down the drain. Even some of them said, "Let me reassure you whoever takes over the country the Chinese will still do well."


We want change! What does it actually mean? Change of government, throw out the UMNO-led BN and bring PR to power. Why suddenly after 56 years are we now asking for change? You mean BN started screwing Malaysians just after GE 12?


Come on lah, face the reality of life. We have been living comfortably under the UMNO-led BN government and been enjoying life to the maximum, able to save money to buy properties, able to go for holidays, buy cars, send children abroad for tertiary education, throw millions on gambling tables in Malaysia, Singapore, Macau and other parts of the world, engage the services of prostitutes and massages, eat exotic foods by killing endangered animals, wear branded clothing and accessories, drive around in luxury vehicles that the poor can't effort, eat a single meal that is equivalent to a cleaner's or factory worker's one month salary and many more that the rural people can't afford.


What made us so pissed off to the extent that we are willing to sleep with the alleged angel rather than the known devil? Suddenly we feel the need for good governance, transparency, accountability, a serious clampdown on corruption and crime.  


Who are the leaders in BN? They are ordinary human beings that were made leaders by the same citizens that are shouting for Ubah now. We elected them, then put them up on altars and bribed them, corrupted their minds with all kinds of gifts, we made them multimillionaires, and we gave them luxury vehicles, money for luxury bungalows, all paid holidays, jewellery and many many more. After doing all these crappy things we want to change the government.


I know you are getting upset with me now. Ok Lah, I agree with the 51%, we change the government come the next GE.


So what next?


What assurances that when PR comes to power we, I mean the citizens, will not repeat the same thing? Do you think the corrupt mind of the citizens will not try to do the same thing? Can we Ubah ourselves first before we Ubah the government? In today's age, pretty much most of us have a 'corrupted mind' to some extent. You can deny it all you like, but each and every one of us knows deep down that it's the truth.


Some proudly proclaim that their race is superior to others - they are mighty, rich, proud of their roots, even to the extent they proclaim they can survive if you tie them to a 100kg boulder and throw them into the deep ocean. So why do you need to Ubah? Live with it lah. We are proud of ourselves as Chinese, Indian, Malays, Iban, Kadazan, Dayak, Murut and so on but if we are not proud to address ourselves as Malaysians then why the need to Ubah? Race, religion, roots, status in society, living standards and education differentiates each and every Malaysian.


A writer mentioned in one article, "It is Malaysia's greatest tragedy that despite being home to people of diverse faiths, mutual respect for one another's religious beliefs is increasingly being compromised." I totally agree with what is written as racial and religious segregation is a constant and will always exist in our mind whether we admit it or not. When the mind attends to something…it considers. When the mind does not attend to something…it dismisses. When the mind attends to something continuously…it believes.


Famous reggae singer-songwriter and musician Bob Marley said this " Life is one big road with lots of signs. So when you riding through the ruts, don't complicate your mind. Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don't bury your thoughts; put your vision to reality. Wake Up and Live!"


My personal view for a change would involve mandatory voting. We all cast a vote or get penalized for not voting. I believe that this would have an enormous, energizing effect upon the whole system as more people would seek more involved choices in how our nation is run. If a person has to vote, that person would be more inclined to look into the issues. Also, with more people voting there would be a bigger push to capture their votes. We have to pay taxes, how come we don't have to vote?


 

Explaining the Trinity

Posted: 20 May 2013 11:23 AM PDT

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_19pxTAyu63E/S_f1Fc-puVI/AAAAAAAAAEk/N_Xyd6zu5tg/s400/520px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.jpg

13 : 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 

The Father is God above us, the Son is God beside us, and the Spirit is God within us. 

Douglas Jacoby

What is the Trinity?

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) defines trinity: 

Being three; group of three. From Latin trinitas, "triad.'' Surely they are not distinct persons as are the Three Musketeers, the Three Stooges, the Three Tenors, or the Three Little Pigs. On the other hand, we aren't simply dealing with one person in three roles, like a person who functions as mother, wife, and professional. The first error to be avoided is tritheism - three separate gods; the second is modalism - where God "morphs" from one form to another according to the need of the hour. 

Part of coming to terms with the doctrine is grasping what theologians mean when they discuss the "persons" of the trinity. In modern English "three persons" strongly implies a triad of gods. But the theological term "person" is from the Latin persona, which means mask, part, character, as in the characters of a play. This of course does not mean that God is somehow "pretending," like an actor. In brief, the holy trinity is the three-in-one. 

C.S. Lewis - "People already knew about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed to be God; and yet He was not the sort of man you could dismiss as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met Him again after they had seen Him killed. And then, after they had been formed into a little society or community, they found God somehow inside them as well: directing them, making them able to do things they could not do before. And when they worked it all out they found they had arrived at the Christian definition of the three-personal God."

Biblical Basis 
Often the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 13:13, Matthew 28:19, John 14:17-23). They are three in personality but one in nature or essence. Again, Father, Son and Spirit are each God (in essence), but none can be identified with the other. 

Again, we must guard ourselves against false understandings of trinity, or we will drift into the errors of "unitarianism" (which roundly rejects the trinity) or tritheism. (The Qur'an mistakes belief in the Trinity for tritheism when it condemns "Those who say Allah is three." )

In short, all three persons are divine. Obviously our heavenly father is God. In addition, many verses state that Christ is divine (2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1, 14), not to mention the indirect proofs of his deity, such as his forgiveness of man's sins (Mark 2), and claiming as his own the name of God (John 8:58). But how can Christ have two natures simultaneously? An illustration may help.

Lemonade is 100% wet, and yet it is also 100% citrus. It isn't somehow half wet and half citrus - it's wholly both at the same time. In the same way, Jesus is human and God.6

Finally, it is also clear from the Scriptures that the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, or the "Spirit of God," is divine. Let's check out the OED definition of the Spirit: "The active essence or essential power of the Deity, conceived as a creative, animating, or inspiring influence." Now this may be an accurate definition, but how does it help us be closer to God? It makes a difference in our lives only when we sense and appreciate that God, through his Spirit , is living within us (John 14). The Spirit in nature is God; all members of the Trinity are equally divine. 

Trinity in Church History 
The earlier "ecumenical councils" strove to define and describe the relationships between the members of the godhead (Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Chalcedon in 451, to mention a few). Yes, many believers in the early Christian era spent generations hammering out the doctrine of the trinity, investigating the intricacies of the Spirit. Even in the Middle Ages, interest in the Trinity was strong. Aquinas produced the most thorough treatise on "The Blessed Trinity."9 In the Restoration movement, especially in the 19th century, there was a reaction against trinitarian language. The famous hymn 'Holy, holy, holy' mentions "God in three persons, blessèd Trinity!" And yet in the overreaction to "traditional" doctrines, these words were changed to "God over all and blessed eternally." Was this really necessary? Is it not true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine? 

Analogies Good and Bad
While it is true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, we cannot correctly say that the Father is the Son, or that Spirit and Son are interchangeable. Analogies therefore need to be carefully selected, lest we inadvertently support false doctrine through our attempts to refute it. 

The analogy I have most often used to explain the trinity is the analogy of the amorphous forms of H20. Ice = water, liquid water = water, and steam = water (in essence), but ice is not steam, etc. Though I like the water analogy, its shortcoming is that it implies the false doctrine of modalism - that God appears in one form now, another at another time. I have heard worse analogies: time (past, present and future), even an egg (shell, white and yolk)!

Or explain the Trinity by way of an atom: An atom is a single unit of matter, and yet is comprised of three components; protons, neurons and electrons. The atom IS because of those three, and yet those three are an atom because they are one.

A better analogy involving water is a river, which consists of a source, stream, and current (Father, Son, Spirit). Or how about the sun? This consists of the star (sun) itself, sunbeams, and the sunshine as it falls on the earth.

Trinitarian triangle [figure]

Opponents of trinity ask, how can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? But the mathematics is all wrong. Really it's a case of 13 : 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Moving from simple math to geometry, the triangular illustration may better encapsulate the truth about the relations among the persons of the Trinity: 

As someone put it more academically, "A better illustration based in human nature would be, as suggested earlier, the relation between our mind, its ideas, and the expression of these ideas in words. There is obviously a unity among all three of these without there being an identity. In this sense, they illustrate the Trinity." 

No single analogy captures the divine mystery, though the various pictures will be more convincing to different people. 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan

 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved