PAP, from people’s advancement to pro-alien

One of the good articles:

PAP, from people’s advancement to pro-alien

In 1959, the PAP (People’s Action Party) was a achieved people’s advancement in socio-economic development. From 1984 onwards, the PAP regime promoted productivity to rely less on foreign workers. In 1990, the PAP promoted a Next Lap vision with immigration as a complement to make up for falling births.

More fast-track career path elite dominated the regime. They were excited about tapping the supposed talent pool of foreign talent around the world. In early 1993, the pro-PAP mainstream media heaped praise on Mr Sim Wong Hoo. He was perhaps Singapore’s only truly home-grown international entrepreneur.

The fast-trackers wanted to become Mr Sim in the fastest time. Under their unique style, they actively turned the workplace into a mini-United Nations (UN) at all levels. They reasoned if this would enhance Singapore’s global competitiveness and greater pay cheques for everyone, including themselves.

There was a huge increase in SPRs (Singapore Permanent Residencies) and citizenships. The beneficiaries included Temasek Review’s future favourite foreign talent Mr Sinha Shehkar. He became a citizen in 1994 at the age of 25 without having to perform National Service (NS). NS was military conscription or its equivalent for male citizens and certain SPRs.

More foreign students entered into the mainstream higher educational institutes such as NUS (National University of Singapore) and NTU (Nanyang Technological University). They were mainly concentrated in Engineering and Information Technology. Some received financial assistance from the PAP regime.

With the fast trackers’ promotion, these students soon had a rewarding career and SPR without serving NS. Some later assisted the PAP regime to bring in more foreigners between the ages of 21 and 35.

The supposed foreign talents had a future exit strategy for themselves and for their sons to legally avoid NS. The PAP regime knew about of NS avoidance but kept quiet as it gradually saw another value for immigrants. More naturalized citizens (about 7000 per year during the 1990s) meant political value.

The PAP regime was upset with certain younger home-grown locals’ interest in a 2 party system since the 1991 GE (General Election). The PAP repackaged itself as a party of both home-grown citizens and foreign immigrants. The fast-trackers wanted to maintain absolute political dominance at home.

After the Asian financial crisis of 1997, 45 year old lesser-educated workers became the 1^st group of locals to lose their jobs. Requests for an immigration slowdown were rejected by the PAP regime. It emphasized retraining for reemployment but it was of limited use so long the massive immigration inflow continued.

During the regular wage rises from 1986 to 1996, many local workers benefited and assumed more good years. Some spent much of their money on eating, drinking and touring. After 1997, no 25-year-old high flyer in the civil bureaucracy wanted to spend much time on 45 year old obese and demoralized ex-workers.

A second elimination wave occurred to 45 year old senior managers from 1999 to 2000. In 1998, PAP legislator and NUS lecturer Dr Tan Boon Wan (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/immigration-still-an-issue-12-years-on/) asked the Cabinet to define foreign talent in employment and career advancement.

The PAP regime became contradictory. It told locals to aim for high advancement while describing high-aspiring locals as pampered and choosy. It claimed there were chronic shortages of well-paid talents while emphasizing foreigners were brought in for low-paying jobs which locals were said to have avoided.

Nonstop and systematic glorification of foreigners by the PAP shaped the organizational mindset. Foreigners were employed and promoted at all levels, functions and sectors because they were foreigners. The employing organizations saw them as better, faster and sometimes cheaper. Improving productivity was nice but it took time. The massive inflow provided instant solutions.

Younger critics had little effect as they were in the minority in their age group. Many youngsters were still having good careers in both public and private sectors and did not care. Some such as Ms Jessica Tan (Information Technology) and Mr Teo Ser Luck (Logistics) would join the PAP regime.

In 1998, the TFR dropped below 1.5. According to the pro-PAP mainstream media, this was a sign that efforts to increase births had failed. The fast—trackers became more inclined to see immigration not just as a complement but a strategic portfolio. Massive immigration created a vicious cycle with less resident births.

While Dr Tan was voicing his concerns, NUS was planning for the next strategic initiative. In 2000-2001, his big boss,newly-installed Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Shih Choon Fong announced the formation of a NUS global knowledge enterprise. By 2005, NUS no longer resembled Singaporean.

The only barrier left was the 2001 GE. Young PAP leader Dr Vivian Balakrishnan talked about reaching out to the younger generation. Within the wider context, this also included the younger foreign immigrants. The PAP had a massive victory with 75.2% of the valid vote.

During the 2002 National Day rally speech, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong criticized unhappy emigrating locals and described them as quitters. The PAP transformation into the Pro Alien Party was complete.

Grey Hippo

Rate This Post

Christians Should Never Offend Anyone - Clearing Up Misconceptions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/01/25/christians-should-not-offend#

Rate This Post

Conscript System And Rifts In Society

Not all articles in TR can be considered good and balanced. Below is one of the good articles sent to TR. How true it is!

In any country or nation with a conscript system, it is expected that the system hold responsibility for shaping the fabric of national psychology and integration to set precedence to a viable governance of the nation. But in some cases, it just fails after some point of time.

In Singapore, a small city state in south east asia with conscript style policies for almost everything, the boys spend 2.5 years of their life serving the nation before they set a steady course in their lives. But is not all over it seems as what follows is a 10 year cycle of reservist obligations. The girls have no mandatory requirements. In comparison to the girls, the boys loose out in employment and further education opportunities by 2 years. Then they lose the pechant to study further due to the long distractive national service duty and numerous psychological taunts in by their military superiors, ironically moulding most of them them into simplistic and narcisstic persons, rather than strong creative individuals. The girls, without this form of distraction climb the career ladder and as a result do not want to marry and settle down with the boys who are left behind. And factor in the foreign women influx, men shun away from local women, disregard them and generalise them. The girls also grow up in a life of luxury and are generally apathetic to political or social affairs in the state . Clearly evident, in their lack of understanding about the conscript system and purpose, state governance and its associated problems , one being the boys who have to compete with foreigners for jobs and reservist liabilities hindering their progress.

To add insult to injury, the cost of living does not tally with earnings and the low wages that citizens earn does not help in procreation in the city state. The other factor is the predominant materialistic culture prevalent in this city state that is causing traditional asian values to be eroded over time. And being females, their natural instinct tend to put materialism as top priority.

The foreigners who arrive, many are unwilling to settle down in the system and contribute to national security as they found that there is no real value in settling down in the city state which has no natural resources, economically unstable , politically underdeveloped and lacking in the diverse array of life found in other developed nations.

Those who do, are most often, not the top talents the govt wants to retain often not highly educated or employed in jobs that require entry or low level skills. These locals and foreigners, mainly professionals in the middle class working sector have also realised that the defective state conscript style is ruining lives by holding citizens hostage decide returning to their countries or use the city state as a stepping stone after a stint is the best option.

In addition the local talents after receiving education and work experience, have been already migrating in droves to nearby countries like Hong, Kong, Australia and the US. When the going gets tough , the tough gets going but elsewhere. Of those who are left behind , are ones that do not have the resources and skills to leave. As a result, the state is left with a mediocre workforce and an apathethic population left to fend for themselves and constantly being hammered down by the relentless state machinery apparatus which in itself is an enormous conscript system of sorts.

The problem here lies in the social fabric of the nation that was engineered for decades to fulfill a narrow mindset dominated purely by twisted and unnatural capitalism , meritocracy and elitism while showing a total neglect for social issues.The manouever has set the ground for an initial social problem that has since intensified and has been seen to cause more problems over time. Though the city state has flourished in physical resources through merticulous planning of infrastructure, transport, medical and security, it is way behind in the social context. While other developed nations have addressed these concerns with effective social planning and ethics, Singapore yet remains unwilling to take concrete efforts. Observers have noted that Singapore’s social and secuity hybrid policies are geared towards bringing about a secure and suitable environment for continous trade and economy, rather than as a whole solution which does not take welfare and rights into account . The system which collapses when the world economy turns its back , the social scenario is now paying the price. Rather than implementing protectionist policies to avert this situation, the authorities expect the social landscape to wait and ride out the tide till things improve.

The other problem here lies with the city state’s obsessive paranoia, stubborness, lack of foresight and outdated styled policing on issues relating to national security, citizen rights and social situation tied in as whole picture. The city state is known to invest in cutting edge defence technology, and yet why is there a need to maintain an army conscript system, when other similar countries like Taiwan have successfully abandoned it? The system together with the other issues is causing problems in the social fabric and how long before they start to realise this issue, until the birth rate reaches zero? Does the expenditure on the conscript system producing any real output value?. No it does not, at best a superficial face value.

Do we have to ask ourselves on why we are spending enormous amount of money on human assets of the conscript system that produces unhappy soldiers, who view NS duties as a hindrance and burden, get disadvantaged in employment, risk their lives, and most importantly bring about dysfunctionality in national birth and marriage rates? The conscript system is an enemy of its own existence, outputting results which is contrary to what it set out to achieve in the first place and along with it bringing added problems. And of course no problem is complete without addressing the the root causes .

It seems the city state is suffering from a major fundamental problem that needs to be addressed – Problems which are made up of myriad of problems. The Singapore, popularly known as the lion city we know today, is best described as the lion with an erectile dysfunction unable to set things upright, a trait which is of outmost importance in maintaining the success the it has than actually building it.

Who are we to blame? Ourselves or the govt? The answer is obvious. Both.

.

NS Joe

Rate This Post

Marry for Money: Strange Ways To Make Money

Interesting Article... haha

Marry for Money: Strange Ways To Make Money

By Jennifer Derrick, September 15th, 2010 | 3 Comments »

Print|Text Size A A+ A++

Email|||||More

If you want to save or have a lot of money, you may have to choose your mate carefully.

While love is fine and even great, there are plenty of people who enter into marriage in the full knowledge of exactly how it will help (or hurt) them financially. While it may sound cold, it’s no colder than the person who marries because their partner looks good on their arm, or the person who marries because their partner can lift their social status.

I don’t think I, personally, could marry only for money. I need love in my life to keep me happy. But some people do just fine with someone they like or can be friends with, even if they don’t love them. Others don’t even need friendship. As long as the money rolls in they can be happy. (Watch a few episodes of “The Real Housewives.” Few of them, in my opinion, look like they are in love, but they sure are happy about having money to blow.) Some people use money as the first or only criteria for choosing a mate.

There are four ways you can marry for money:

Marry someone with money: (Or marry someone who will inherit a lot of money.) This is the most effective, if not the easiest. If you marry someone who already has a lot of money, you know you’re set. The money is already there. If you marry someone who stands to inherit a lot, you’re taking more risk. Wills can be changed or inheritances blown before the giver dies. However, if there is a big family fortune or business, your odds are better. Finding “sugar daddies” or “sugar mamas” isn’t easy. If you’re not already a member of the wealthy social set, you have to find a way to meet the rich people. Fortunately, there are online dating sites like SeekingArrangement that can match those wanting a wealthy partner with the right people.

Marry someone who is already good with money: You might choose to marry someone who, while not wealthy today, is very good with money. Even if your prospective mate isn’t earning a fortune, if he or she is managing what they have well then they might be a keeper. If the person isn’t in debt, knows how to budget, has some frugal tendencies, and is setting aside large amounts for the future, you may find yourself financially well off in just a few years.

Marry someone who can fix things: Even if your partner doesn’t earn a huge income, if they can fix or build things you can save up a large fortune over the years. If your partner can fix cars, repair the house, or build furniture, you can save enough money to create a large nest egg. Don’t underestimate your partners’ skills when thinking about how much money they bring to the table.

Marry someone who has the potential to earn a lot: Maybe your potential mate isn’t earning a fortune today, but does he or she have the potential to do so? Are they in medical or law school? Do they have some rare talent or ability that can earn them millions? Do they stand to inherit a high-performing family business? A partner that will earn a lot later in life is a potential keeper in the marry for money stakes. These people are easier to find because a lot of people that are looking for money now pass them by, not content to wait for them to “earn out.”

If you can find a combination of these things, for example someone with money who also knows how to fix things, you can double your savings. You’ll not only have a lot of money to start with, but you’ll also keep more of that money since you won’t have to spend it on home repair.

Even if you don’t want to “marry for money,” per se, it can’t hurt to give some thought to your partners’ money skills. A marriage is generally happier when there is no money stress and both partners are on the same page financially. It can’t hurt to choose someone who isn’t a big spender without the resources to back it up. If you can find someone who has skills, is good with money, or is frugal, that can be just as good as finding a sugar daddy.

Rate This Post

Surviving as an introvert in an extrovert's world

To some extent we are all a little bit of an extrovert and a whole lot of an introvert, if we are labeled as introverted. Turn that around and we extroverts have some small portion of the introvert in us, else why would we so admire the quiet bookish ones among us.

The terms are old hat, however. Psychologists have now come up with various labels that describe behavior that labels the outward bound as extroverts and the inward looking as introverts. What they are subject to change as new studies and new information is made known. It really doesn't matter, however, most people are programmed from birth to lean toward one or the other. Environmental influences may tilt the scale slightly toward one or the other, but these are minimal.

Yet, the question is how do the two groups live together harmoniously; or words to that effect. It is asked from the standpoint of the introverts, those preferring to lead a quiet low key life as opposed to their loud mouth sisters

The introvert must decide how much show and tell she can take and when she's had enough of the outside world, it is her choice to out and sit alone at home while the parade of hoopla passes her by. If she is content doing that, who can argue? Only she can answer that for herself and it may be a startling discover to the world that inside most the introverts there are extrovert cravings.

Sitting at home and moping and refusing to get involved may not be what it is cooked up to be. Being quiet and reflective by nature is one thing, but sitting home alone out of shyness or an inborn fear of the crowds is another. It would be healthier to enjoy the best of both worlds and not allow it to become stressful, but that seldom is the way personalities work. If it were not so, then there would be no need for psychologist to help them figure out the best way to go.

Introverts sometimes are too near perfect, or wish to be. If they cannot write the best poem that is flawless they will not write one at all. Extraverts simply go ahead an write what first comes into their minds and that's that. Their perfectionist tendencies manifest themselves in being the better presenters. How their actions appear to others, as opposed to what others will know of their thoughts. Neither should fret, however, but be the best they can be, and no worry or fret over psychological labeling.

Fear, in both cause problems when it enters into their personality trait of being outgoing or inward looking. One is afraid others will find out about their boisterous nature and they won't open the door to their inner creativity; the other has opened that door and fear what they learn.

How then does an introvert live in an extrovert's world. You pay them rent. You work for them and earn the good salaries they can afford and you fill in for them in the area that is just beyond their capacities. The two of you were meant to be together. Your loud and boisterous sister or brother or husband fill a need you have. With association a little of them rub off on you, and because of your insistence on time out and quiet time, you subdue them.

Just think how boring life would be without the other. It is unthinkable. The two ideally make good companions, they fill in the vacancies of the other. Therefore fret not, introverts, you are the listeners the world needs.

Rate This Post

If U're in a relationship, married or none, read this. U'll know why at the end.

MARRIAGE

When I got home that night as my wife served dinner, I held her hand and said, I've got something to tell you. She sat down and ate quietly. Again I observed the hurt in her eyes.

Suddenly I didn't know how to open my mouth. But I had to let her know what I was thinking. I want a divorce. I raised the topic calmly.

She didn't seem to be annoyed by my words, instead she asked me softly, why?

I avoided her question. This made her angry. She threw away the chopsticks and shouted at me, you are not a man! That night, we didn't talk to each other. She was weeping. I knew she wanted to find out what had happened to our marriage. But I could hardly give her a satisfactory answer; she had lost my heart to Jane. I didn't love her anymore. I just pitied her!

With a deep sense of guilt, I drafted a divorce agreement which stated that she could own our house, our car, and 30% stake of my company.

She glanced at it and then tore it into pieces. The woman who had spent ten years of her life with me had become a stranger. I felt sorry for her wasted time, resources and energy but I could not take back what I had said for I loved Jane so dearly. Finally she cried loudly in front of me, which was what I had expected to see. To me her cry was actually a kind of release. The idea of divorce which had obsessed me for several weeks seemed to be firmer and clearer now.

The next day, I came back home very late and found her writing something at the table. I didn't have supper but went straight to sleep and fell asleep very fast because I was tired after an eventful day with Jane.

When I woke up, she was still there at the table writing. I just did not care so I turned over and was asleep again.

In the morning she presented her divorce conditions: she didn't want anything from me, but needed a month's notice before the divorce. She requested that in that one month we both struggle to live as normal a life as possible. Her reasons were simple: our son had his exams in a month's time and she didn't want to disrupt him with our broken marriage.

This was agreeable to me. But she had something more, she asked me to recall how I had carried her into out bridal room on our wedding day.

She requested that every day for the month's duration I carry her out of our bedroom to the front door ever morning. I thought she was going crazy. Just to make our last days together bearable I accepted her odd request.

I told Jane about my wife's divorce conditions. . She laughed loudly and thought it was absurd. No matter what tricks she applies, she has to face the divorce, she said scornfully.

My wife and I hadn't had any body contact since my divorce intention was explicitly expressed. So when I carried her out on the first day, we both appeared clumsy. Our son clapped behind us, daddy is holding mommy in his arms. His words brought me a sense of pain. From the bedroom to the sitting room, then to the door, I walked over ten meters with her in my arms. She closed her eyes and said softly; don't tell our son about the divorce. I nodded, feeling somewhat upset. I put her down outside
the door. She went to wait for the bus to work. I drove alone to the office.

On the second day, both of us acted much more easily. She leaned on my chest. I could smell the fragrance of her blouse. I realized that I hadn't looked at this woman carefully for a long time. I realized she was not young any more. There were fine wrinkles on her face, her hair was graying! Our marriage had taken its toll on her. For a minute I wondered what I had done to her.

On the fourth day, when I lifted her up, I felt a sense of intimacy returning. This was the woman who had given ten years of her life to me.

On the fifth and sixth day, I realized that our sense of intimacy was growing again. I didn't tell Jane about this. It became easier to carry her as the month slipped by. Perhaps the everyday workout made me stronger.

She was choosing what to wear one morning. She tried on quite a few dresses but could not find a suitable one. Then she sighed, all my dresses have grown bigger. I suddenly realized that she had grown so thin, that was the reason why I could carry her more easily.

Suddenly it hit me... she had buried so much pain and bitterness in her heart. Subconsciously I reached out and touched her head.

Our son came in at the moment and said, Dad, it's time to carry mom out. To him, seeing his father carrying his mother out had become an essential part of his life. My wife gestured to our son to come closer and hugged him tightly. I turned my face away because I was afraid I might change my mind at this last minute. I then held her in my arms, walking from the bedroom, through the sitting room, to the hallway. Her hand surrounded my neck softly and naturally. I held her body tightly; it was just like our wedding day.

But her much lighter weight made me sad. On the last day, when I held her in my arms I could hardly move a step. Our son had gone to school. I held her tightly and said, I hadn't noticed that our life lacked intimacy.

I drove to office.... jumped out of the car swiftly without locking the door. I was afraid any delay would make me change my mind...I walked upstairs. Jane opened the door and I said to her, Sorry, Jane, I do not want the divorce anymore.

She looked at me, astonished, and then touched my forehead. Do you have a fever? She said. I moved her hand off my head. Sorry, Jane, I said, I won't divorce. My marriage life was boring probably because she and I didn't value the details of our lives, not because we didn't love each other anymore. Now I realize that since I carried her into my home on our wedding day I am supposed to hold her until death do us apart.

Jane seemed to suddenly wake up. She gave me a loud slap and then slammed the door and burst into tears. I walked downstairs and drove away.

At the floral shop on the way, I ordered a bouquet of flowers for my wife. The salesgirl asked me what to write on the card. I smiled and wrote, I'll carry you out every morning until death do us apart.

That evening I arrived home, flowers in my hands, a smile on my face, I run up stairs, only to find my wife in the bed - dead.
My wife had been fighting CANCER for months and I was so busy with Jane to even notice. She knew that she would die soon and she wanted to save me from the whatever negative reaction from our son, in case we push thru with the divorce.-- At least, in the eyes of our son--- I'm a loving husband....

The small details of your lives are what really matter in a relationship. It is not the mansion, the car, property, the money in the bank. These create an environment conducive for happiness but cannot give happiness in themselves. So find time to be your spouse's friend and do those little things for each other that build intimacy. Do have a real happy marriage!

If you don't share this, nothing will happen to you.

If you do, you just might save a marriage.
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

A CHRIST-CENTERED MARRIAGE IS A MARRIAGE THAT IS SURE TO LAST A LIFETIME.

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. Matthew 19:6.

By Stephanie Halmilton

Rate This Post

One generation is all they need

One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society's resistance to the loss of privacy. An expert on surveillance and society lays out how corporations and gove

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/136744

Rate This Post

The inevitable new world order

Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, in his speech, also talks about a new world order (which idea has already existed in the past) .. hmm..

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2009/03/11/speech-by-dr-ng-eng-hen-at-the-19.php

Rate This Post

CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years

Israel will fall in 20 years? How accurate is this report (see below)? We shall see. Anyway, it is prophesied Israel will face worldwide persecution which result in invasion during the end times (great tribulation period). It is only then Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their Messiah ...

CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:44:41 GMT

International lawyer Franklin Lamb

A study conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has cast doubt over Israel's survival beyond the next 20 years.

The CIA report predicts "an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

The study, which has been made available only to a certain number of individuals, further forecasts the return of all Palestinian refugees to the occupied territories, and the exodus of two million Israeli - who would move to the US in the next fifteen years.

"There is over 500,000 Israelis with American passports and more than 300,000 living in the area of just California," International lawyer Franklin Lamb said in an interview with Press TV on Friday, adding that those who do not have American or western passport, have already applied for them.

"So I think the handwriting at least among the public in Israel is on the wall...[which] suggests history will reject the colonial enterprise sooner or later," Lamb stressed.

He said CIA, in its report, alludes to the unexpectedly quick fall of the apartheid government in South Africa and recalls the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, suggesting the end to the dream of an 'Israeli land' would happen 'way sooner' than later.

The study further predicts the return of over one and a half million Israelis to Russia and other parts of Europe, and denotes a decline in Israeli births whereas a rise in the Palestinian population.

Lamb said given the Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians and the Gaza strip in particular, the American public -- which has been voicing its protest against Tel Aviv's measures in the last 25 years -- may 'not take it anymore'.

Some members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have been informed of the report.

Rate This Post

Absolute Truth

Written by: Joshua Joscelyn

What is truth? What is the nature of truth? Is there even such a thing as truth? Some would argue that truth is relative, and that they are absolutely certain that we cannot be absolutely certain of any truth. As ridiculous as this statement sounds, the logic goes something like this. I perceive reality through a different lens or filter than does anyone else, and therefore, my reality is different than your reality. Those who subscribe to this school of thought claim that truth is relative - based upon perspective or perception. This relativism, known as subjectivism, states that absolute truth does not exist, and that reality is contingent upon the subject.

There is another side to this debate, however, and those on this side claim that we can be absolutely certain that there is absolute truth. This is called objectivism, and holds that truth is not determined by the subject, but rather is inherent in the object. In other words, this truth never changes - no matter who is looking at it or how. In the scientific realm, these objectivists believe that their theories do not provide just a better understanding of reality - as the relativists believe - but rather, that they are reality in themselves. Instead of agreeing with the relativists that theories help our perception of reality, they claim that their theories are reality - or absolutely true.

The problem with objectivism in science is that science alone simply cannot yield absolute certainty due to its inductive nature. Science observes clues about reality, and makes assumptions and conclusions about reality, based upon these clues. In essence, science starts at the bottom, and seeks to understand the truth at the top without a first-hand knowledge of reality. Their perception is limited to their theories. Though science can give us a good idea of reality, or reasonable certainty, only God's Word can give absolute certainty. A detective cannot be absolutely certain of what took place based upon the clues alone. Though he can formulate a good theory and be reasonably certain his theory is correct, this cannot be compared to the absolute certainty that comes from a first-hand account such as viewing security camera footage of the event in question. So while science is important, it cannot be compared to the first-hand account recorded in Scripture. Absolute truth does exist. The Bible tells us "thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17b). Our foundation for absolute truth rests upon God's Word. All other ground is sinking sand.

Rate This Post

Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?

Please click this link if you want to read the article --> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/feedback-god-heal-amputees

I quote one part of the article which really captured my full attention:

If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.

Rate This Post

Going rate to kill pastor: $250

WorldNetDaily
Going rate to kill pastor: $250
Rewards offered for murdering Christians, destroying homes, churches

---

Posted: November 20, 2008
11:30 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling

---

WorldNetDaily

Hindu extremist groups are offering money, food and alcohol to anyone who murders Christians and destroys their homes.

The violence is nothing new in Orissa, India, where India's Communist Party estimates that more than 500 Christians have been killed by Hindu mobs in Orissa since late August, 12 times more than official government claims of only 40 homicides.

But now the stakes are even higher – and pastors have a bounty on their heads.

Faiz Rahman, chairman of Good News India, said Hindu militants are targeting Christian leaders, the Christian Post reported.

"The going price to kill a pastor is $250," he said.

Rahman, a head of several orphanages in Orissa State, said he's helped 25 pastors to leave refugee camps, but 250 Christian leaders are still in shelters.

"All of the pastors are high value targets," Rahman told the UK-based Release International. "We've got to get them out of the refugee camps."

An All-India Christian Council spokesman said, "People are being offered rewards to kill, and to destroy churches and Christian properties. They are being offered foreign liquor, chicken, mutton and weapons. They are given petrol and kerosene."

(Story continues below)

One official said he personally authorized "cremation of more than 200 bodies" found in jungles after Christians were blamed for the death of Hindu leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati on Aug. 24. They continue to be persecuted even though Maoists openly admitted to murdering Saraswati.

Thousands of homes and churches have been destroyed, and an estimated 50,000 Christians have been forced to flee the violence. Mission Network News estimates 5,000 Christian homes have been burned and 200 churches ruined. According to the Christian Post, 30,000 people remain in government-operated refugee camps. Tens of thousands are living in forests – many seriously wounded.

Father Manoj, based at the archbishop’s office in Bhubaneshwar, said Christians remain in hiding.

"They are too scared to go home. They know that if they return to their villages they will be forced to convert to Hinduism."

Religious rights group Barnabus Fund told the group Hindu militants "forced" Christians in Orissa to "convert" to Hinduism by threatening them with rape if they refused.

Neighbors reportedly gang-raped a Hindu woman after her Christian uncle refused to renounce his faith, according to reports.

Another Christian woman named Jaspina was told by neighbors, "If you go on being Christian, we will burn your house and your children in front of you." She and her family were forced to eat cow excrement to "purify" themselves of Christianity.

Other Christians were doused with gasoline and told to participate in conversion ceremonies or be lit on fire.

This week, Hindu extremists said they have set a deadline for the capture of Saraswati's murderers. If the killers are not caught by Dec. 15, they promised to begin a massacre on Dec. 25, Christmas day.

According to the latest report, Orissa's Catholic bishops wrote an ominous letter to the state's chief minister. It read, "This conflict is a calculated and pre-planned master plan to wipe out Christianity from Kandhamal in order to realize the hidden agenda … of establishing a Hindu nation."

Rate This Post

Something to think about: The upcoming US election

Something to think about...


A reprint of a letter mailed out by the American Family Association:

The upcoming election is the most critical election in the history of our nation. The very future of our nation’s foundation is at stake. Every person will be affected. If the liberals win, then our foundation will no longer be based on the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It will gradually but assuredly be based on an ever shifting, ever moving foundation. If the liberals win, the damage can’t be stopped with elections two, four or forty years from now. America will forever be changed. We will keep seeing a gradual and growing hostility toward people of faith, especially Christians. The morals of our nation will continue to decline. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

In case you may think I’m a “the sky is falling” type of person, you should know: When it comes to predictions, I am a very reserved person. But not on this one. I cannot overstate the damage a liberal victory will do to our country. The upcoming election is the most important in the history of our nation. Yes, if the liberals win you will lose some of your religious freedoms and free speech rights. Churches and pastors will not be exempt. You will not be allowed to say certain things about a particular group. Every item of the homosexual agenda will be approved. All the laws protecting the unborn will be wiped away.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of the Nov. 4 election. That is why I urge you to vote and encourage your family members, friends, Sunday School class and church members to vote. America’s future – the future of your children and grandchildren – is at stake.

Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Rate This Post

Albert Einstein is neither an atheist nor a christian. He is a deist!

After reviewing a few articles on whether Einstein is a believer of God; whether he is a christian, I have chosen this article to put on the this post. I feel the article below is good enough to answer these burning questions. I will put up more relevant articles if I happen to come across. If you are interested to know more, you may want to read: His Life and Universe

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem
Introduction

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

  "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

  "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

  "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

  "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Why no personal God?

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?
Einstein's error

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

Conclusion  

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

Rate This Post

Interesting report below (haha...) :

Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.comThu Apr 10, 11:25 AM ET

Women seeking a lifelong mate might do well to choose the guy a notch below them in the looks category. New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.

Researchers admit that looks are subjective, but studies show there are some universal standards, including large eyes, "baby face" features, symmetric faces, so-called average faces, and specific waist-hip ratios in men versus women.

Past research has shown that individuals with comparable stunning looks are attracted to each other and once they hook up they report greater relationship satisfaction. These studies, however, are mainly based on new couples, showing that absolute beauty is important in the earliest stages of couple-hood, said lead researcher James McNulty of the University of Tennessee. But the role of physical attractiveness in well-established partnerships, such as marriage, is somewhat of a mystery.

The new study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, reveals looks continue to matter beyond that initial attraction, though in a different way.

Supportive spouses

McNulty's team assessed 82 couples who had married within the previous six months and had been together for nearly three years prior to tying the knot. Participants were on average in their early to mid-20s.

Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.

"A negative husband would've said, 'This is your problem, you deal with it,'" McNulty said, "versus 'Hey, I'm here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'"

A group of trained "coders" rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. About a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.

Trophy wives

Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking.

The finding "seems very reasonable," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management. "Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary," said Ariely, who was not involved in the recent study.

In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.

"The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get," McNulty told LiveScience. "He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship."

Men who are more attractive than their partners would theoretically have access to partners who are more attractive than their current spouses, McNulty said. The "grass could be greener" mentality could make these men less satisfied and less committed to maintain the marriage.

Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.

So it seems the mismatch in looks is actually a perfect match. "Equitable is unlikely to mean the same on every dimension," Ariely said during a telephone interview. "It just means that overall two people make sense together."

• 10 Things You Didn't Know About You
• The Rules of Attraction in the Game of Love
• The Sex Quiz: Myths, Taboos and Bizarre Facts

• Original Story: Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men

Rate This Post