Welcome! If you arrived here via BlogExplosion, please read this earlier post and share your own experience with BE. As mentioned in that post, I conducted a mini-experiment in the past week or so, and I have some preliminary findings which I will post later.

Something else has frustrated me recently and it is not with BE or with that 30-seconds-which-seem-like-an-eternity thing, or the clicking-at-28-seconds-and-losing-the-friggin’-credits-twice-in-a-row thing, or opps-clicked-wrong-number-by-mistake-again! thing, or worse, oh-here’s-the-10-mystery-credits-won-but-oh-shit-I-press-the-wrong-key-and-now-its-gone thing. In fact nothing to do with BE.

My problem is with Blogger. Tried to get on to it a few times over the past week. By deliberatedly not surfing for credits it was supposed to give me more time to blog! But, Blogger gave up on me a few nights this past week. After logging in, and clicking on my blog link it just wait for many seconds before coming up with an internal server error! Whazzupwidat!?!

In fact, while trying to fix this post up, I found another problem with Blogger. I had an older window up and hit the publish accidentally and it overwrote my fixed post! Worse, after fixing it and trying to republish, I get this "Waiting for www.blogger.com" message sitting there staring at me! Can I go to sleep yet????

So, that is why I am thinking of changing and need your opinion. Please go here if you have done something like this, and especially if you have experience with the providers I mention in that post.

For those who didn’t come via BlogExplosion and if you have no idea what I am tlaking about, go here and have a gander and if you wish to join, click here. As some of the folks who posted their comments earlier, apart from getting more traffic, even though most are just credit-earners, you will get some new readers and some will become regular, and you do get to know a whole lot of other bloggers out there. So it is worth it, if you don’t let it run-and ruin-your life!

Recently, I posted a meditation on a passage of Scripture in Exodus chapter 3. I used an often, but easily, overlooked instruction that God gave to Moses to remove his sandals, as a springboard to finding out both what the instruction might mean or perhaps, what it entails, or implies, and also, more importantly, to describe the implications of an encounter with God.

A commenter suggests that what I wrote, while in principle is true, and is taught in other scriptures, was not explicitly taught in the text from which I was quoting. This is no just any ordinary commenter, but Jeremy Pierce, aka Parableman, a well-loved blogger described by The Bible Archive, as a blogger who “offers philosophical thought-flow balanced with strong convictions making something which is often completely engrossing. I may not agree with all of his positions but this dear Brother can deftly argue from philosophy and Scripture.” Like the author of TBA, I do not agree with everything Jeremy says, but I respect him as someone who thinks deeply and carefully about these things.

So, that started a series of comments back and forth between Jeremy and myself, and also started me thinking about the legitimacy of much of our meditation upon scriptural texts and about the legitimacy some kinds of devotional Scriptural reading. Jeremy pointed out that the principles that my extrapolating from an often overlooked instruction from God to Moses to remove his sandals contains a biblical principle taught elsewhere in Scriptures but not necessarily taught by the text under consideration.

While I believe that the point I made in my meditative post did not contradict the principle Jeremy highlighted, I believe Jeremy’s point is very instructive and insightful. Often it is very tempting to proof-text our doctrine, or favorite teaching, by mis-reading and mis-quoting Scripture. You may or may not have heard about the man who sincerely desired to be led by Scriptures. He decided to use a little bit of "finger lucky-dipping" by opening the Bible and letting it fall on a page and closing his eyes, he points with his finger onto a verse at random. He assumes that whatever he points to contains the biblical mandate for his life. When he opened his eyes, he was chagrined to find his finger at a rather unpalatable verse: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." Disturbed, he decided to give it another go. The second time his finger fell on the following verse: "Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise.’" Exasperated, he tried a final time, and this time he was really distraught for his finger fell squarely upon, "What you are about to do, do quickly!"

While our proof-texting may not be as humorous and outrageous as the story, it nonetheless involves a distortion of scriptural principles and is contrary to what the scriptures teach. It is especially dangerous to take a verse out of context and build doctrine out of it. A good example of this can be seen in the nineteenth century when even ministers argued that slavery is not only acceptable, but approved by God because there are scriptural verses on the duties of slaves, and masters. (Note: I know this brief statement about scriptural support for slavery might open a can of worms, as Jeremy pointed out in commenting to my rough draft, but I will leave it here without further comment as an illustration of how misquoting and misapplication of scriptures can lead to unpalatable consequences).

So I am thinking of doing a series on How to Read the Bible. I believe there are many different ways to read the Bible. Here are some of the main ones:
(1) Reading the Bible devotionally
(2) Reading the Bible as part of a Bible Study exercise
(3) Reading the Bible as part of an Exegesis

These are just three of the different ways to read the Scriptures, I will expand on each of the types of Bible reading methods in up-coming posts. For now, the most important point to come away from this article is that the Bible is given to us not to decorate our coffee table, nor is it as a fashion accessory, but it is given to us to be read.

One of my mentors used to lament the fact that while we have a Bible on our bedside table, or on our book shelf, we seldom stretch out our hands to take it and read it, yet we will travel miles, navigate thick bumper-to-bumper traffic and go through sun, hail and rain to listen to the visiting bible teacher or itinerant preacher to listen to their preaching. Yet, all the time, God is waiting to speak to us through His word. So, stop reading this blog already! Open your Bible, and read it! J

Next time, I will write a little more about how to read it devotionally.

UPDATE: You can find Part II of this series here.

In my meditation on the first commandment I said that it is easy for me to get the prohibition against idolatry, but relatively harder to understand the commandment for having no other gods. Actually in thinking of the first two commandments, it almost seems to me that they are two sides of the same coin. That these two are part and parcel of the same commandment (It is interesting to note that the Bible doesn’t refer to the "Ten Commandments" anywhere). On the one hand, God commands that Israel shall have no other Gods except the LORD. On the other hand, they are not to make nor bow down before any graven images of anything in heaven or earth.

In considering the first commandment, one might be tempted to think that it all but makes the second commandment unnecessary. If the first commandment prohibited Israel from alegiance to any other gods, why is there a need for the proscription against the making of, and bowing down, to any graven images? Doesn’t the prohibition against worshipping any other gods also preclude the worship of graven images? One might think that this is exactly the case since in this context the graven images were understood as a substitute for God, and the restriction on making and worshipping graven images specifically prohibits substitituting God with graven images.

Perhaps God wanted to underscore the exclusivity of His relationship with Israel. He is the LORD their God. They are to have no other Gods before Him. And, if they did not really get that, God spelt out what that means. They are not to have any substitute for Him - they are not to worship any graven images:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above
or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them
or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the
children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those
who hate me."

Perhaps, there is more to just not having no graven images, or not to make for themselves any idols. Why is it important that they were to have no graven images? That they are not to make and bow down before any idol?

As a kid, I grew up with all sorts of gods around me and my family. There was the God of the Earth, the God of War, the God of the Kitchen, the Monkey God, the Goddess of Mercy Mere and the King of Heaven. Throughout the year, special days were set aside for different celebrations and worship of these gods and goddesses. Many of these gods are represented by idols and graven or painted images. I still remember some of these gods have terrifying appearances and I did not like to look at them. Still, we worshipped these gods and ask for their favor, blessings and protection.

So when I became a Christian, I was able to relate to not making any idols and bowing down before them. I understood what it means to be an idol-worshipper. It seems that we creatures have a peculiar proclivity to replace God in our lives with an idol. Just as Augustine says, we have a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and we are restless until it is filled with Him. While it remains void, we will continue to seek a substitute in order to fill that emptiness. Call that a search for meaning or a search for significance or a search for ultimate purpose, whatever you call it, it is a search to fill that void that only He can fill.

We chase after substitutes and if it is in the form of a graven image, or a painting that reminds us of a mythical or legendary figure that can bring us wealth, peace or safety we will bow down before that idol and devote ourselves to serving that god.

That type of idol worship may not be as powerful as what we have also identified as idolatry. That is another form of replacement for God that can be an attractive power that has a hold upon our lives. This can be anything from a past-time, a person, a thing or a passion. A more powerful, and insidious form of idolatry is the idolatry of turning God into something other than Himself. This kind of idolatry is the act of reducing God to a sub-standard image of our own mind’s creation. Rather than making a graven image with our own hands, we make this image with our mind and fixate our worshipping of the One True God, with this "god-wannabe" that we have created.

Sometimes idolatry involves seeking God’s blessings rather than God Himself. Recently at a dinner party, the friends we were with made a statement that made me raise my internal eyebrows a bit. Referring to their grown son who found a dream job with Disney, they said, "God is good to Him." Although I refused to judge them but instead try to understand what they said in the context of popular beliefs, I cannot help but wonder if our popular beliefs have been unfortunately tainted with misconceptions.

I wonder if sometimes we have the danger of attributing to God’s goodness only when we find good results in our life. When things go exceptionally well, when we are in good health and when we have that dream job or when we win that scholarship or get that sale, we say, "God blessed me" or "God is good" but when we suffer, and when we have pain, and when things go terribly wrong, we respond differently. Questioning doubts arise in us, "Why me God?" or we shake our fists against God and say, "Why couldn’t you have acted?" Or some such… We may not go through these extremes, but very seldom do we say in times like these, "God is good to us/me". Oh, we may still say, "Thank God in (or for) everything" in our more sober and spiritual moments, but we rarely respond to evil, or bad experiences with a spontaneous, "God is good to me/us."

And, that is the most dangerous form of idolatry. In his famouse sermon on idolatry, J.C. Ryle said, ‘idolatry is a worship in which the honour due to God in Trinity, and to Him only, is given to some of His creatures, or to some invention of His creatures.’ The worst form of idolatrous creation is the creation in our minds of something that is less than God. It could be a creation of some idea, or concept of God that is less than God Himself. It could be a creation of a blessing, a special gift or something that we desire from God, but as long as it is something else other than God, and it shifts the focus of our relationship with Him, it is idolatry - idolatry of the most dangerous kind.

A particularly dangerous form of such distortion and creation of a replacement for God is what is known as Biblioatry - the worship of the Bible instead of God. This is insidious and misleading, for we then replace the primacy of our relationship with God with a distorted devotion to scriptures, doctrine and "truth."

Instead of realizing that God wants us to relate to Him, that when He gave Moses the Commandments, He began by underscoring the history of who He is and what He had done for Israel, before announcing that He is their God and then going on to give the logical consequences of that relationship. "No other gods" and "no graven images" must be set against the backdrop of "I the LORD am your LORD who rescued you out of Egypt". Also, He needed to give both injunctions for we are created in His image. By nature we are creative, and if we do not harness our creativity within the context of a dynamic relationship with our Creator, we may be tempted to distort the Real by the misapplication of our creative juices.

So when we read God’s commandment against idolatry we may conjure up images of pagan idol worshippers that happens in non-Christian temples and places of worship, and say, "I am not guilty of that!" Or we might conjure up modern day replacements of divinity such as the T.V., Football, or something mundane, "worldly" and non-spiritural, and we might have this to say, "I used to be carnal but now I no longer practice such idolatrous sins." However, when confronted with the reality of the other kind of insidious idolatrous behavior is, we need to be extra careful that we don’t fall into the idolatry trap ourselves. For we may all be guilty of that sin daily and need to be vigilant against our sinful nature.

As we have seen idolatry can be that tendency to replace the focus on relationship with God with any other form of spirituality. Or it could be a frivolous seeking of His gifts, blessings and other good things, rather than an intimacy with the holy God. Or even a reduction of God to some other distortion of who He is, and the replacement of the dynamic relationship with the Trinity with a stringent adherence to a Book, even the Holy Scritpures.

When we realize the full scope and measure of idolatrous behavior we see then the need for an additional measure of His grace and mercy so that we are able to follow the admonishment of Paul to "flee from idolatry" (I Cor 10:14).

I am thinking of switching from BlogSpot. What do you guys suggest? I am thinking perhaps I need to get a TypePad account, because I don’t have my own server. I am also thinking of getting my own domain.

I do have questions and hope someone can answer some of them:
(1) Are there any good reasons to stay with BlogSpot (new kickass version(s) about to be released>
(2) Can I transfer all my posts over without losing anything?
(3) I have a Haloscan account, can I easily transfer my comments and keep it in the archives of TypePad?
(4) I have checked out TypePad, WordPress and MovableType. It appears that TypePad is better than WordPress. What are your experiences one way or another? MovableType seems to be for more advanced folks with lots more knowledge and skills than I. I am still a novice with html and coding etc, so TypePad would probably be better for me, what do you guys think?

Any advice vis-a-vis moving from one provider to another? How about transitioning etc. Should I keep both sites up for a while with pointers from one to another and mirror all the stuff until I am positive the new site is up and ready?

Decisions, decisions, decisions…

Found out about this evil minion guy who loves to shred other folks’ blog. I volunteered and got shredded. I do have a few objections - I think he was too kind! If you’re gonna shred my blog, you’ve got to be nastier! Labeling me a conservative didn’t help you any either. Finally, what’s up with this brit humor thing huh? How about some good ole aussie laughs to brighten the day?

Go over here to read his analysis and while you’re at it why don’t you sign up to be shredded too? After all, evil minion is looking for a liberal!

Recently, LA Times’ CounterIntelligence column ran a great review on this hidden gem of a restaurant in Redondo Beach, CA. My wife and I, along with two other couples paid them a visit last night, and oh, man, I am still raving about its delicacy!

This is one fine restaurant. The service was very fast! Well, it was a rainy Saturday night and the restaurant was not filled up so that might have helped.

We ordered seven dishes to share among ourselves:

• Wat Tan Hor (Fried flat, white rice noolde, covered with a rich egg based sauce with seafood).
• Belacan Crab (Fresh crab deep fried to perfection and then stir fried with belacan - a shrimp paste).
• Fish Head Curry (Fresh fish head cooked in curry powder, spices, chillies and cooconut milk.
• Datin’s Beef Rendang (Fresh beef cutlets marinated and cooked in a rich, dry curry paste)
• Ampang Yong Tau Foo (Stuff bean curd, egg plant and peppers coooked in claypot)
• Belacan Kangkong (Fresh water spinach vegetable stir fried in a light belacan shrimp paste sauche)
• Malaysian Curry Chicken (Moist morsels of chicken meat, slow cooked in a rich coconut milk based curry sauce.

We had steamed white rice to go with the sumptuous dishes.

When the first dish arrived, the Wat Tan Hor. I was surprised at the smaller serving than usual. There was enough only for about a couple of spoonfuls each for the six of us, but the authentic taste more than made up for the smaller serving. We needed to save room for the other dishes as well! The noodle was soft and crisp, fried to just the right consistency, and the sauce was very smooth; the egg white was not overcooked and blended in with the sauce without being lumpy or hard. It was perfectly done. There were ample servings of juicy shrimps and the bok choy was crispy and fresh. Since leaving Malaysia almost 25 years ago, I have never tasted such authentic fare until now! If I had to leave at this moment I was already satisfied, but what was to come was more of the same! It was really good!

Each of other dishes were relatively smaller in serving sizes than your regular Asian restaurant, except for the Fish Head Curry, and Belacan Crab. The Fish Head Curry was served in a good sized claypot filled with huge morsels of fish, egg plant, aubergine, green bean, bell peppers and onions cooked in perfection in a luxuriant coconut curry with just the right blend of spices. The taste was delicate — not too spicy, with a hint of sweetness from the coconut base and the fragrance of tamarind. My family were out at another famous Malaysian haunt, the Penang in West Covina and their Fish Head Curry was memorable, but this was a cut above. Highly recommended.

The Belacan Crab was deep fried and then stir fried with belacan, fragrantly enhanced by a noticable portion of roasted dried shrimps, providing a really exotic taste to the tender crab meat. Each bite was as juicy, and tender as the next. The crab was meaty and the meat was cooked to the right consistency. Delicious!

Although the Ampang Yong Tau Foo was not particularly outstanding, the serving size was reasonable for the six of us, and the ingredients tasted fresh. Each piece of yong tau foo (stuffed bean curd) was lightly seared and the stuffed eggplant and peppers were juicy and crisp, while the fish paste was moist and tender. The sauce for the Yong Tau Foo was just right too, making the entire dish well balanced and satisfying.

The Belacan KangKong was classic - when the dish was brought out, the color of the vegetable showed that it was cooked just right, leaving the leaf fresh and the stem crunchy. The vegetable was stir fried, and tossed in a light belacan sauce, garnished with crisp cut red chiles on top. It was simply yummmm!

The Beef Rendang was simply sensational! The pieces of beef was tenderized with a blend of the rich spices and the dry curry paste with firm chunky pieces of potatoes were well blended together just like what you’d expect at a Kampung makan feast back home. The beef rendang simply melts in your mouth and the only complaint I have is that the serving size was a tad on the small side.

The Malaysian Curry Chicken tasted as if it was served by the hawker stalls back at Medan Selara in Petaling Jaya! Heavenly!

I had a glass of the teh tarik. While the tea may have looked a little darker than the tea you get from the Mamak stall next to the KL Hilton, the taste sends your senses right back to the roadside extravaganza! I simply loved it!

For desert, we had the Ice Kacang and the Cendol. The Ice Kacang looked and tasted like any you would get from the side stalls of any Malaysian marketplace or hawker center. The Cendol was a disappointment, but by then we did not mind it a bit.

To finish, the restaurant brought out complimentary bowls of Bobo Cha Cha which was served hot, but the taste again! It was sensationally close to the original that you could get in Malaysia.

Having lived in Malaysia the first twenty years of my live, I haven’t been able to get such authentic fare any where else, and I have been eating all over the world - both coasts of Australia, Hong Kong, both coasts of the US, and after twenty-odd years of being away from Malaysia, this is the first time I have tasted food from a restaurant that I can truly say is authentic Malaysian. Yet, as I said, it was not overpoweringly spicy. Before we left, each of the three couples at our table made a pact among ourselves to return, together, as well as with our individual families/friends. I would highly recommend anyone who wishes to try the blends of Malay, Indian and Chinese cuisine for which Malaysia is so notable.

So if you guys are in the SoCal area, you must get out there soon. If you are not in the SoCal area, well perhaps you can put it down to a must-visit when you next come over to LA-LA-LAND. The ocean is only a mile or two from that location.

Here is the Address:
Belacan Grill
2701 190th Street
Redondo Beach
Tel: 310 370 1831

P.S. I may only have one or two other regular readers in the LA area, otherwise, we could organize a …in the outer… blog culinary experience, what say you folks?

Failing that, perhaps you can tell me what your favorite eating out place is…

I am currently in a grad program in philosophy at a the California State University, Long Beach. The other day, in one of my classes, a student, who is Cherokee, presented a paper in which in part he questioned the legitimacy of Western tradition of speciocentricity - the view that the human species is a higher form of life than any other animal and life forms. It was interesting, and while a few members of the class appreciated his call for tolerance and open-mindedness, the professor challenged us to think about the possibility of rationality in animals. According to the professor one measure of logical thinking and rational activity is playing chess, and challenged us to find an analogous mode of activity in any other animal species. While a few tried to suggest that there might be conceivable and possible analogous activities in the non-human animal kingdom, the professor doubted the plausibility of such analogies. Then, a member of the class, a retired man who has had quite a bit of learning and life experience, inpatiently disputed such "nonsense" by suggesting that if we were to maintain that "mere" animals are equal to us or even analogous to us in their mental capacity and rationality, then we are discounting the hundreds and thousands of years of collective cultural, literary and intelectual wisdom that human beings have accumulated which shows that clearly we are of a "higher intelligence" to "mere animals." He was angry and it showed, and it appeared to me that it could easily lead to an "Artest-esque confrontation." (Sorry, couldn’t refrain myself!)

This post is not really about the pros and cons of thought or conceptual life in animals, interesting though it might be. It is really about the reaction of this gentleman to the call for open mindedness, possibility and tolerance. For usually it is a "liberal" person who often calls for such tolerance. Usually it is the more "conservative" among us who resists tolerance and open mindedness. (I am using those two terms "loosely" but given the current climate in our society and especially in blogosphere, I realize that those two terms are severely loaded and controversial. So be it, let’s just go on…).

Conservatives sometimes shirk back from open mindedness because they prefer the status quo, they respect years of rich heritage and culture and bow to the traditions of the fathers, while liberals sometimes emphasize the need to be open-minded and consider other points of views. However, sometimes conservatives accuse liberals of being open-minded for the sake of open-mindedness, and liberals on the other hand accuse conservatives of being rigid and unwilling to change, preventing progress and development.

And that was what happened in my class. One group was encouraging the rest to be tolerant to other viewpoints, while the other was accusing the first group of debunking the years of collective human wisdom. It also reminds me of my earlier experience as a Christian fundamentalist.

I remember in my teenaged years, being aware of the fact that some of our friends were looking on bemusedly as we Christian boys (I went to an all-boys school) sat around debating, sometimes heatedly, about pre-trib, pre-mil, baptism (water, sprinkling), the Holy Spirit, tongues, and a host of all sorts of other doctrinal issues.

It never occured to us that our energy and passion might had better be saved to rally together, pray and work together to bring our friends to a better understanding of who their Creator is. We love this thing called doctrinal purity, probably ingrained in us by our own pastors, Sunday School or Bible Class teachers, and elders.

In fact, the church I went to as a young fella had a ranking system. Our church were supposedly closest to the Bible, in terms of "New Testament practices" especially the "rules" (or traditions) laid out in 1 Corinthians about church polity. Then other churches were ranked according to whether or not they accepted certain doctrinal priorities.

As I grew up, I often got tired of this insistence on doctrinal purity and on theological correctness. I find this to be the case among some of the churches and church leaders that I know. It seems that people were willing to sacrifice relationships just so that they can be "right." It seems so important to them that they are "right."

I was thinking of this while blog-surfing the past few days, and reading some heatinged exchanges that occur between people of opposing viewpoints. Usually these viewpoints have to do with politics, but sometimes ethical and moral issues also bring up the ire in people. For instance, the gay marriage issue has been a thorn in the side of the Church for a while now. I wonder why it is that Christians seem to appear to be some of the most disagreeable folk in the world.

Yet of course Christians are not alone in this. Recently I also observed a similar disquiet happen in an on-line forum. Someone, who is known to be a Christian, posted something about the ACLU and quoted from a source. Someone else in the group, who is not a Christian, responded by suggesting that the posted had an ulterior motive, although the original poster did not make any other remark. Names started to fly as the second poster decided that the first poster was trying to subvert the "open minded" discussion by offering a religious or ultra right-wing bent on the issues at hand. It got nasty rather quickly. This time, the supposedly "open minded" liberal was the culprit who quickly shut the "conservative" before a level headed discussion could take place. So, I supposed, the problem there was a perceived threat to a personal belief that led to heightened passions and emotional outbursts. Perhaps it is just because we all have this dire need to be right, or at least to be seen as being right.

I just popped over to Challies.com, and found Tim vexing over the issue of negative feedback he had been getting at his site due to readers’ disagreement with his views. Tim asked:

Is apologetics inherently negative? I doubt God would say so. There may be a negative aspect to apologetics, simply because to defend is to assume that there is something to defend against, but the practice in itself is not negative. On the contrary, apologetics should help people grow in their faith as they are warned against succumbing to Satan’s infiltrations. I seek to make apologetics practical rather than abstract, uplifting rather than purely negative. If I take issue with a teaching, I seek to show the proper Biblical alternative. I know that I do not always succeed in this goal, but I do strive for it. When I fail, the community who reads this site generally lets me know, and I do appreciate their concern.