Vivere est cogitare

ALL ABOUT THE BEAMISHBOY

2010-02-14T13:29:00.002+08:00

Hi folksies,

I think there has been some confusion. People who read my blog tend to get confused by the profusion of ideas which are often conflicting. The reason is simple. My views have been evolving. I make it a point not to amend or delete my past posts in this blog and so I get to see the progression of my thoughts. Also, some of my posts were made after I had a fight with people on the internet and I naturally said the nastiest things of them. They could be atheists or even religious people such as Roman Catholics with whom I crossed swords at one time.

I will talk about myself here so it becomes clear what my beliefs really are.

My preparatory school is a choir school for boys in a very famous and ancient cathedral. There were only about 30 boys in the entire school and the selection process was rigorous. All boys had to be musical and we had to pass voice auditions.

Apart from being a choir boy in the Abbey, I also served as an altar boy. I've been an altar boy since I was 6 and I still serve at the altar which means I've been an altar boy for more than half my life - almost my entire conscious life.

I was a very successful choirboy and had a somewhat illustrious career, having sung solo in many performances. But alas, the day came when my voice became unstable about two years ago and I had to leave the choir. I continued to play the clarinet which I've played since I was pretty young and the beauty of the clarinet is that it's the closest to the human voice.

I now have a tenor voice and I've been roped in for some performances but I still miss the grand soprano parts. What my voice cannot achieve, my clarinet can. I still play some of the oratorios which I used to sing as a boy. There are many pieces for the soprano voice by Bach and Handel which I used to sing but can now only play on my clarinet but they mean a lot to me, particularly the religious ones.

Not too long ago, I was made a thurifer (which means I'm the cool guy who swings the incense into church). Before I accepted my appointment (most thurifers are priests), I told my vicar my beliefs. Oh, before I go on, I should explain what my beliefs are.

When I was a boy, I naturally believed in God as a real being. Any kid would believe in that.

I also thought to myself that the Bible had to be true and had to be the word of God. After all, in the Liturgy, the reader will say "This is the word of the Lord" after each reading of the biblical texts except for the Gospels which call for a different response. As a lifelong altar boy, I know the liturgy like the back of my hand.

It suddenly dawned on me one day that I should read up more about how we got the Canon in the first place. My readings took me to FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Lee McDonald and finally, Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. I learnt from the very start that Josh McDowell got his facts all wrong and anyway, he's not a scholar at all and he knows nothing.

It would be tedious to go into detail as to what I believed from year to year and in some periods of my life, from month to month or even from day to day. What's important is where do I stand now?

I believe God does not exist as a being at all. I discount everything that is supernatural. God is a metaphor for goodness, justice and truth. The ultimate goodness, justice and truth. The metaphor takes the shape of the Christian religion to me because of my culture and identity.

That's precisely what I told my vicar and in a discussion with my bishop as well. The conclusion of the prelates of my church is that I'm still a faithful adherent to Holy Church and I'm a faithful and devout Christian and member of the Church of England. Or if I may use a more international language, I'm a faithful Anglican which means I'm a faithful and devout Christian.

There is a lot of good in the Church and it would be foolish to abandon the Church just because we have a different view of God.

It's not always that Christians have believed in God the way Christians now do. I discovered that even Origen, that bastion of Christian scholarship, had a different idea of what God really is. He thought Jesus was created by the Father (the firstborn of all creation). Subsequent amendment to the concept of God made Origen posthumously a heretic. A Christian of an earlier generation may baulk at my metaphorical God concept but there may come a time when his view would be considered superstitious and heretical.

These are my views at present. I'm confident they would remain my views even when I'm 50.

Back from the Alps!!!

2009-10-03T06:44:00.003+08:00

Yoopsies doodles, folksies and blokesies!!!!

Like a bear in winter, I've been hybernating or at least my blog has. In early September, I spent some time in the Alps. The views were stunning and everyone spoke German but the hotel I stayed in that had a lovely view of the mountains was very British. It's even got a very British name. It's called Victoria Jungfrau. I'm sure it's named after Queen Victoria. Here's a pic:

CRIME AGAINST THE BEAMISHBOY

2009-05-24T20:35:00.003+08:00

PARADISE LOST

Last Thursday, the beamishboy went biking as usual. Nothing in the air whispered of a tragedy that was about to happen. The beamishboy felt a need for a drink for it was a hot afternoon. He stopped his bike by the roadside, locked his bike to a railing on the pavement and dashed into a supermarket to buy a bottle of Coke. Having fortified himself with a swig from the Coke bottle, he dashed back to his bike and what greeted him was any biker's nightmare. His bike was gone!!! And so was the lock.

PARADISE REGAINED

Yoopsies doodles, toads and poodles!!! Heaven really exists!!!!

Yesterday, the beamishboy bought a new bike. This is the coolest bike that's ever been made by any bike company. It's got all the lovely parts and a set of charming hydraulic disc brakes. My previous bike didn't have hydraulic disc brakes.

The beamishboy has vowed NEVER to leave his bike unattended even for a few seconds. If he has to go anywhere that he can't have the bike with him ALL THE TIME, he won't take the bike out and will just travel on the tube.

Belief in God

2009-04-11T01:32:00.002+08:00

Do I believe in God?
Well yes, I suppose, in a sort of way;
It's really terribly hard to say.
I'm sure there must be, of course,
Some kind of vital, motive force,
Some power that holds the winning cards
Behind life's ambiguous facades,
But whether you think me odd or not
I can't decide if it's God or not.

I look at the changing sea and sky
And try to picture eternity;
I gaze at immensities of blue
And say to myself "It can't be true
That somewhere up in that abstract sphere
Are all the people that once were here,
Attired in white and shapeless gowns
Sitting on clouds like eiderdowns

Plucking on harps and twanging lutes
With cherubim in their birthday suits,
Set in an ageless, timeless dream
Part of a formulated scheme
Formulated before the Flood
Before the amoeba left the mud
And, stranded upon a rocky shelf
Proceeded to subdivide itself."

I look at the changing sea and sky
And try to picture infinity;
I gaze at a multitude of stars
Envisaging the men on Mars,
Wondering if they too are torn
Between their sunset and their dawn
By dreadful night-engendered fears
Of what may lie beyond their years
And if they too, through thick and thin,
Are dogged by consciousness of Sin.

Have they, to give them self-reliance,
A form of Martian Christian Science?
Or do they live in constant hope
Of dispensations from some Pope?
Are they pursued from womb to tomb
By hideous prophesies of doom?
Have they cathedral, church or chapel?
Are they concerned with Adam's Apple?
Have they immortal souls like us
Or are they - less presumptuous?

The Creed of Beamishboyism

2009-04-06T08:10:00.002+08:00

The Story of God in a Nutshell

God exists outside of time and space. He is the originator of the universe. He originated the universe about 14 billion years ago. Many planets that could support life appeared but I will focus only on our planet because I'm anthropocentric (which sounds better than egocentric, hehe).

God is bound by the laws of physics and he is NOT almighty. He is limited by physics laws which are the laws of the universe.

In a sense, he created the earth because he probably originated the Big Bang. But once the Big Bang took place, everything became set in motion and everything that followed, took its course quite naturally. The earth soon cooled down after it was formed 4.5 billion years ago. As we know today, crystals can form naturally and on earth, there happened to be carbon and hydrogen in abundance. Just as crystals would bond to form the crystals we can see, so did the carbon molecules bond. With the aid of natural lightning, the first formation of what we later term "life" was nothing more than the affinity between molecules that is no different from the natural bonding of crystals. Unicellular organisms began to thrive. One organism ingests another in a most natural process of chemical reaction.

Thus began the "life" of our first ancestor. In a sense, because God originated the Big Bang, he "created" life on earth.

We moved along from unicellular organisms to worms to marine creatures to piakia (spelling uncertain but that is the ancestor of all vertebrates) which dwelt in the sea to the first animal that left the sea (a bit like mudskippers today) to reptiles to the mammalian reptiles that swarmed the earth just before (and possibly even after) the Permian-Triassic Extinction 250 million years ago, ultimately to primates. About 8 million years ago, we split from the gorillas and about 5 or 6 million years ago, so our genetic record tells us, we parted ways with the chimpanzees and we developed and evolved differently.

As it was the case with most evolutionary divergences, it could very well be that a river separated our common ancestors with the chimpanzee into two groups and over hundreds of thousands of years, we evolved into humans and they into modern-day chimps. About 500,000 years ago, we split again from the Neanderthals and they evolved in their own way. They probably became quite intelligent too because they had an even bigger brain than ours. They made the flute about 50,000 years ago whereas the earliest musical instrument (also a flute) found among us was about 30,000 years old in a Cro-Magnon settlement. But they became extinct about 30,000 years ago. It is possible that we viewed them as rivals and exterminated them. It's not the first time we exterminated a whole species.

Where does God come in? God saw that the hominids had grown intelligence and could communicate through language. There were times when he, out of compassion, tried to intervene in human affairs. But God had his limits and he couldn't do much. Our evolutionary paths continued unhindered. Sometimes, God did help us but at times he only served to create misunderstanding among the early hominids which created unnecessary trouble. God realised it was best that he didn't interfere too much, given the fact that he had very limited powers.

Did God communicated with the Neanderthals? Possibly. High concentrations of pollen were found in Neanderthal graves which suggest that they had some form of funeral rites that made use of flowers. We still sprinkle flowers in graves!!! It's likely that they also had some form of religious beliefs.

People ask why God didn't save the 6 million Jews from the evil Nazis or the hundreds of thousands of Chinese from the evil Japs. There is only one answer. He was powerless. He couldn't save the Neanderthals either, could he?

Christians have tried to have it both ways. They make God Almighty AND loving and compassionate. Sorry folksies, you can't have it both ways. If he were almighty, he'd be a nasty little bugger.

Because God communicated with hominids such as ourselves and the extinct Neanderthals, only we are capable of having this concept of God. But we all make God to be what he isn't. The Judeo-Christian religion makes him out to be Almighty, omnipresent, omniscient and omni-everything. But no siree, he isn't. We collected a stack of ancient books and we say it's his Word but sorry folksies, it's not. The ancient Jews, like all ancient people, were a violent lot. Like any nomadic tribe (think of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan of the Monggols), they would attack cities and kill everyone including children. Naturally, the Jews would say in their holy books that God commanded them to kill. But poor God could do nothing to correct the slur on his name.

But all was not lost for God. He decided to make an appearance among men. He became incarnate and was born Jesus. Jesus taught the Jews how wrong their ancient books were. He'd say, your law says this but I say this. He didn't say "my law". While the OT tells us that God commanded the killing of a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, Jesus and his disciples WILFULLY did many things on the Sabbath and when confronted, did he repent? No siree!!! He said rather "The Sabbath was made for men and not men for the Sabbath". Would a God who says that sort of thing order the murder of a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath??? Certainly NOT.

The law talks of killing a person caught in adultery. What did Jesus say when they were about to stone an adulteress? Did he say, "Obey the law"? Of course not. He effectively stopped them from murdering the woman and he set her free. Did Christ disobey God's law? Of course not. That wasn't God's law. Some people say Christ could forgive and not flout the law. RUBBISH!!!! Read the law. There was no proviso for forgiveness. There was no exception. An adulteress MUST be executed.

Anyway, God continues to be misunderstood today. Churches reinterpret everything and they bark up the wrong tree and try to read in the Bible some special message from God and they wrongly accept the Bible in its entirety as God's word.

The Christian's Fire Escape No. 1

2009-04-05T14:34:00.004+08:00

The interesting thing about the internet is that people don't measure you according to your age. Right now, I have an email exchange with a very famous architect who's very old (he's about 55 or 56) who is extremely knowledgeable in religion. He's a devout Christian who actually does not accept evolution. He's really an old man and not a student pretending to be an old man - he's featured in top magazines on his field of work.

He does not agree with the beamishboy on religion and on God. I've examined his arguments and I've noticed a common thread that runs through the arguments of ALL Christians. One would have thought the beamishboy would be reluctant to debate with intelligent old men on religion but I think I've won not because I'm clever but because my beliefs are correct. I've got right on my side.

I have decided to group together what I call the Christian's Fire Escape. When a fundamentalist Christian is confronted with an argument that will shatter his beliefs, his usual response is "Yoopsies doodles, toads and poodles! I'm off to my Fire Escape!!!"

Fire Escape No. 1 is one which this highly intelligent architect uses. To be fair to him, he's only used it in one line of his email but I think it's quite common in Christian circles to use this. I feel obliged to show up its flaw.

FIRE ESCAPE NO. 1 - THE AUTOMATON ARGUMENT

There are a few charges that we can lay at God's door. One, if the Christian religion is so blooming true and all non-believers would perish, why doesn't God make it clear and in unequivocal terms that the triune God is the only true one? The charge can come in various forms. In my email communication with the architect, I explained that I've been studying the human genome and one appalling story I've read is that of Huntington's Disease that is caused by Chromosome No. 4. In the US, people with this horrible genetic disease descend from two brothers who emigrated to the US in the 1600s. Some of the descendants of these two brothers were burnt as witches in Salem.

I stated that these Christians at Salem were honest, sincere believers who wanted to do the will of God. They loved Jesus and studied the Bible and really wanted to do what was right in the eyes of God. The Old Testament says that witches are to be put to death. They killed sufferers of Huntington's Disease in the name of Jesus and out of obedience to what they sincerely believed was God's holy will.

If someone loves me and is going to kill a Huntington sufferer for my sake and out of a misunderstanding that I want that chap killed, there would be no expense that I would spare to ensure that his misunderstanding is corrected. And I'm not even almighty. God, by failing to do this and many other similar things that I'm sure you can think of, must be guilty of the most heinous crime that only the ultimate evil beast can possibly be guilty of.

My correspondent defends God in this manner. God is not responsible for the evil state of human nature. He can't go round eradicating our evil nature and turn us into "mindless robots happy to do His will".

This is the famous Automaton argument. It's a very common argument that every Christian from childhood onwards is taught to resort to when occasion demands it. As in all Christian arguments, this is applicable in a variety of ways. Christian arguments are usually not very precise. They are nebulous and hazy and this is important because just a few arguments are usually recycled and used for a huge variety of problems.

The biggest flaw in this argument is of course the fact that correcting the Salem Christians' misunderstanding is not turning them into automatons. Similarly, making it absolutely clear to people that only a particular religion is true is not turning them into mindless robots. Rather the converse is cruel and unfair especially if not making it absolutely clear to everyone will result in hell fire for unbelievers.

How can anyone love God?

2009-04-04T00:35:00.004+08:00

The other day, my aunt who is a fundamentalist, asked me if I loved God. Wow!!! Love God??? Let's see, how does one begin to love God? Can one love something that one has never seen or heard or touched or felt or tasted or smelt? I love the taste of steak and kidney pie (especially if it's got a lot of gravy on it) and I love the smell of fried salmon but God is different. He's hidden himself so well that to demand love from anyone would be unjust and wrong.

Jesus compares God to our earthly fathers. But our earthly fathers are infinitely more responsible and fatherly than God. If there really is a God, it'd be very bold and shamelessly presumptuous of him to demand love. He is worse than an absentee father who despite his almighty powers, have concealed himself from his "child" . God gives his child 5 senses and ensures that he can't with these senses perceive God's existence at all. The poor child gathers a motley collection of ancient books and takes it to be God's word only to find the collection of books filled with errors and violence expected of any ancient literature. Yet the poor child soldiers on and bravely defends his pitiful collection of books as God's word, excusing God and defending him at every turn. God is better off non-existent.

It's hypocritical of anyone to say he loves God. It's impossible to do so, if you really think about it. What I love is the CONCEPT of God. I like the IDEA of him. But I most certainly don't love him any more than I love a green unicorn. Perhaps I love a green unicorn more because I can at least imagine what it looks like.

Get thee behind me, God.

HOMILY FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

2009-03-27T16:09:00.004+09:00

MEDITATION FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

I have again been invited by His Diabolical Grace, the Archbishop of the Holy Atheistic See of Babylon to give a further exhortation on the first Sunday before the Holy Atheists' Day of 1st April. I have written an short excerpt of my sermon which you, my gentle readers, are privileged to read:

"Your Diabolical Grace, prelates and priests of the Atheistic Church and to all atheists: I bring you greetings from God's Holy Church. We congratulate you on the celebrations of your holy day.

My Lord Jesus Christ when He was on earth did say that he would separate people into two groups - one on his right and one on his left. To the group on his right he will say to them that they have helped the poor, fed the hungry, visited the sick and imprisoned and He will say to them that what they have done to the least of human beings, they have done it to Him. And He welcomed them into His kingdom. You already know the rest of the story and what He obviously will say to the group on His left.

What is significant, my dear friends is that JESUS DID NOT MENTION A WORD ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS. He did not welcome the group on his right as people who BELIEVED in a particular dogma.

So, who are these people on his right who are welcomed by Jesus? They presumably would include people today who go to my church and other churches. They presumably should include people who go to other places of worship and presumably, they should include people who don't worship at all because they don't believe in the existence of God.

We may be separated here on earth. My holy days are Christmas and Easter and yours is celebrated on 1st April. But not all of us will be separated in the life to come even for those of you who do not believe in the afterlife.

Who are the people to the left of Jesus. They may be some of you and they may be some of my church folks too. All I know is my Lord separated them because of what they HAVE DONE and NOT WHAT THEY HAVE BELIEVED IN.

That is the crux of the matter and although on earth, we simply love divisions and we love to quarrel, the reality is we have divided people according to the WRONG CRITERIA that God Himself does not employ.

Your own Archbishop, His Diabolical Grace, is a man of great compassion and love. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be standing on that great day to the right of Jesus and he will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus together with many others of diverse faiths and no faith while multitudes of people of diverse faiths and no faith will be rejected by Christ.

I have enjoyed a tour of your lovely Hanging Garden of Babylon but I had to turn down your offer of carnal pleasures which are forbidden in my system of belief. I wish you great joy on your holy day.

Let us sing the atheistic Gloria Patri:

"Glory be to Emptiness and to Nothing and to the Holy Vacuum. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shalt be. World with an end, Amen, Amen."

HOMILY FOR THE SECOND SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

2009-03-21T01:25:00.008+09:00

MEDITATION FOR THE SECOND SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

The Bible tells us that the fool says there is no God. The Bible is indisputably the greatest book on this planet. It is a bestseller like no other bestsellers. At any second of the day for the past 2000 years, no other book can come even close to its heels in sales.

Because of the supremacy of Scriptures, it has been said unfficially that 1st April is Holy Atheists' Day. It's a day for the telling of silly jokes, the playing of foolish pranks and a day to commemorate one's disbelief in God. It's a day for godlessness, un-Christian pranks and boundless folly - unchecked, unadulterated, undiluted FOLLY.

But do atheists deserve this description?

I have been invited by His Diabolical Grace, the Archbishop of the Holy Atheistic See of Babylon to give the homily tomorrow, the Second Sunday before the Holy Atheists' Day. I've prepared my exhortation and you, my dear folksies and blokesies, will get to read it in its entirety. Here goes:

"Thank you, Your Diabolical Grace, for the invitation to the Holy See of Babylon. I have been very much welcomed by Your Diabolical Grace and your flock of goats and although I was obliged to refuse your offer of carnal delights, I am touched by your hospitality.

I was recently very much annoyed by a horde of atheists in an atheistic forum which I have left. They admitted being very much wounded by my arguments and because they desperately needed succour, they sought the help of the moderators of the forum who decided to silence me. I was told that any mention of "God", "the Lord" or any mention of God's attributes would be deemed "preaching" and was a forum rules violation. Atheists are permitted to denigrate God but if a Christian so much as mentions God's name even in argument, he is guilty of "preaching". At the same time, I was told I was very much welcome to debate with atheists, as reason and logic were important to them!

Are all atheists cowards? Are all atheists so terrified of the name of God that they have to formulate rules to outlaw His name from being mentioned except in a way that is agreeable to atheistic ears? Are all atheists in trepidation every time a Christian seeks to debate with them? Do all atheists shake like a leaf when they engage a Christian in argument?

I am happy to say, my dear atheistic brothers that not all atheists are that yellow-bellied. His Diabolical Grace and I are the best of friends and although our two religions can never agree, he and I continue to argue and debate with fire and truth.

What are the faults of atheists? I will not say sin because that's the nomenclature of my religion. The faults of atheists are no different from the faults of Christians. Some atheists think they're brilliant (when they're not). Many people embrace atheism because they think it's the religion of most scientists and so that'd make them appear smart. But a fool does not become smart just because he adopts the religion of some scientists just as a chap does not become a grizzly bear because he eats salmon. I share the same religion with Francis Collins (the No. 1 genetics and genome scientist on this planet), Isaac Newton, Pascal, Alexander Bell, Fleming, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer and about a billion other scientists, philosophers and writers past and present but do I go round boasting that I believe in the GREATEST religion in the world? Do I tell the world that mine is the religion of the greatest artists, writers, musicians and dancers in the whole world? That the greatest music ever composed is all composed for my God and His Glory. No, I do not boast of these. If I were to boast, there would not be time enough for me to complete boasting if I started now and continued non-stop until I'm 100.

I see there is no singing and no music in this great Church of Atheism. I perfectly understand. Music and choral works are all in glory of God and you, naturally can have no part of it.

And now, let's rise for the benediction. May the blessings of Nought, the Emptiness, Nothing and Holy Vacuum be with you now and forever more. Amen."

YET IN MY FLESH SHALL I SEE GOD

2009-03-18T00:19:00.006+09:00

I have been reading a great deal of Darwinism and evolution these few days and I'm quite entranced by our origin. Although there is no conflict between religion and evolution, I can't help thinking that God must be quite a bungling fool if everything seems to be done by trial and error. Genesis says God saw that whatever he created was good. But the more I understand evolution, the more I see the imperfections of all species. An intelligent Creator wouldn't have created humans the way we have evolved. Evolution makes do with the body that we have and builds on it. If there is a Creator and he employs such a means of "creation", he can't have given much thought to the whole thing. He is either not bothered about his creation or he is a bungling fool or he does not exist.

My mind tells me of course God does not exist. Tonight, I chanced on a shelf containing some of my old song books that I used to sing. The first few books were Bach's cantatas. Next to them, stood a thick volume of Handel's oratorios. It's amazing that I used to be able to sing all these and they're written for soprano voice. And it was not that long ago when I sang them - less than a year ago. I took out my clarinet and played one of Handel's pieces. It was in E major. Drat it! I'd have to mentally transpose it to F#. I played it once through and it was so beautiful I played it again, and again. I could remember every word as I played even though I looked only at the musical notation and not the words. Mozart said that the clarinet was the instrument that was closest to the human voice and he was spot on. It was amazing!!! I played my clarinet and it was really my voice (before it broke) - singing soprano. The words were loud and clear - it was quite surreal. I heard my old voice again and every word uttered distinctly.

Those of you who have sung oratorios will know that lines are often repeated many times. I used to think the repetitions of lines that were so common in Baroque and Classical singing were meant to fill up the space for the music.
When I played the line "And though worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God / Yet in my flesh shall I see God", I just knew I was in communion with God. The scales fell from my eyes when I sang it with my clarinet. The first "Yet in my flesh shall I see God" is intended to sound doubtful and tentative. When it is repeated, it becomes definite and emphatic. That's precisely it!!! We are always assailed and buffeted by doubts but Handel through his music is telling us in an emphatic voice "YET IN MY FLESH SHALL I SEE GOD".

I felt I had communed with God and all I had with me were my clarinet, the music stand and Handel's score. Those were all I needed to hear the voice of God and to chase away the clouds of doubt. I have lost my voice for good. I will never sing soprano again - and thank God for that!!! But my voice will always remain in my clarinet even when I'm 100 years old.

I always find Handel more meningful than Bach and the other composers, possibly because Handel wrote in English and it's easier to understand him. When I was in Dresden last December, I heard Handel sung in German. The Germans wanted to claim Handel as their own, but I think they're wrong. Handel loved England and he became English and wrote all his oratorios in English and wrote pieces for the English King. He lived, worked, died and was buried in England.

Whenever I feel God to be distant and unreal, I know what to do. Get my clarinet and Handel's music. Yet in my flesh shall I see God.

THE NATURE OF REALITIES

2009-03-10T21:01:00.002+09:00

The beamishboy has thought long and hard about life and God. In my earlier blog entry, I spoke with some asperity about the total lack of evidence for God's existence. That is true and I can say nothing to correct that statement.

But does anybody expect evidence for God's existence?

I now have an answer for all this. To understand where God stands, we need to understand the nature of reality. No, I'm wrong; we have to understand the nature of realities. There are as many realities as there are different beliefs.

Most people, particularly atheists, can only think of one form of reality. We shall call this common reality. That Obama is the 44th President of the US is in the realm of common reality. No sane person would dispute that. The facts, as we know them, I mean those that are not disputed are a part of common reality. Whales are mammals, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules - these are all real.

Most of science falls within common reality. However, some aspects of science remain speculative. For example, the String Theory is not believed by all scientists. Neither is the multi-verse theory for the origin of the universe. All speculative aspects of science are not a part of common reality. They are speculative and once they have been proved to be correct, they enter the realm of common reality. Sometimes, science undergoes some changes. What was THOUGHT to be common reality may be found to be erroneous and it gets booted out. But that does not mean that science is inaccurate.

For most people, there are OTHER REALITIES. I'm not saying that everyone should force himself to believe in other realities. It's just that some people do. Those of us who believe in realities that are not a part of common reality should be honest about this. We should not pretend that it's real to everyone. It's only real to us because we CHOOSE to believe in it.

How many forms of realities are there? There are as many of these realities as there are beliefs in the world. Some beliefs have died but their realities are still there - locked mysteriously in the realm of the supernatural. What about religions that conflict with one another. There's no problem. The different realities are very different indeed. There are different realities within even the same religion.

Can any of these realities (which are not common reality) be proved in any way? Absolutely not. If they can be proved, they would immediately form a part of common reality.

Wouldn't that make religion extremely personal because its reality depends on what individuals believe in? Of course, religion is absolutely personal. Attempts to convert others are definitely wrong. People who try to convert others have mistakenly assumed that their religion comes under common reality and that's plainly wrong.

THE GOD ELUSION

2009-03-07T01:02:00.004+09:00

The beamishboy has come to a crossroads. Should I continue to hold on to a belief in God?

The Facts

First, God is highly elusive. So elusive is he that there is absolutely no trace of God anywhere. Like the abominable snowman and the Loch Ness monster, God has left no footprint behind. He has left no evidence, answered no prayer, done no miracle, appeared to nobody and he has made no sound at all. Those who claim that God has answered prayers or has done any of the things I've stated are just not thinking right. We know God cannot heal people beyond what doctors with their current medical knowledge can or beyond what nature's healing powers are capable of doing. God will then muscle himself in and say "I healed you!!! Praise me!!!" but any objective guy can see that that's rubbish. It's the doctors who healed me, you may say. But God will insist that it's because he blessed the hands of the surgeons!!! Oh for crying out loud!!!

The same goes with miracles. They don't happen and those who claim they do are just, again, not thinking right. God closed the mouths of the lions in the Book of Daniel you may say. But we also know that when Christian martyrs together with whole families were thrown into the lions' cage, there was not a single case of God shutting the mouths of the lions. We know that the cruel Romans even went to the extent of throwing infants to the lions so that their mothers would put up a fight with the lions and that would give greater entertainment to the crowds who were watching the feeding of Christians in large amphitheatres. We know there was no record of any miracle either by the Roman historians or the early Church Fathers. If there had been even a hint of a single miracle, you can be sure the Church Fathers would have written volumes about the mercy of God and his wondrous miracles. There was none. The Book of Daniel is at best not independent reporting.

If God answers prayers, in the area of healing alone, there should be clear statistics that Christians generally heal better, live longer and fall sick less. Even if only 10% of prayers on healing are answered, there should be a significant and appreciable difference statistically. Not only is there no evidence for such a favourable position for Christians but the fact is most Christians don't even BELIEVE that they have any advantage however small a percentage over non-believers or people at whom no prayers are directed. And yet they believe in the efficacy of prayer. That's internally contradictory. Now, clearly, they are not thinking right.

Then there is the rubbish about the need for a creator. This idea is so demonstrably primitive. From the earliest childhood, everyone knows that building blocks do not arrange themselves into beautiful castles. There's got to be a designer or maker. It's natural for the human mind to extrapolate. So they say there must be a creator for the Earth, nay, for the whole universe. So they say, "Let there be God" and there was God and men saw that God was good and they blessed Him. After that, they decreed that you can't go behind God. He's after all been defined. He's the ultimate. To go behind him would be illogical and invalid. Yes, there are co-religionists of mine who DARE to use the word "logic" in their religion and I assure you they're so hardened they really don't blush as they say it.

So you start with a decree that God is the ultimate Creator behind whom you cannot go. And you decree that since a watch that I've found while walking on a road must have a creator, everything else must have a Creator except for the first rule ie God is the ultimate and only He has no Creator. God exists by human decree.

I'm only speaking of God in general; not the Christian God in particular. Let's say we now pick my God, the triune God of Christianity. We have to look at the Bible, the source book of my religion.

Anyone who thinks the Bible is inerrant and flawless is clearly not thinking right. For as long as I have been a Christian with consciousness (I'm talking about the time I was too young to consciously understand the faith), I have been cooking up excuses for the obvious errors of the Bible. There are books galore that supply excuses for the sometimes shocking errors of the Bible. They are called "apparent errors" because no devout Christian likes to say that the Bible is full of errors.

Recently, I decided to go into the origin of the Bible. I studied the Canon of Scriptures and my Vicar told me that I should have a good balance and since I was reading books written by liberal Christians, I should balance that with evangelical Christian writers. He knew I could not take fundie nonsense and I could not abide Josh McDowell's write-up on the Canon which is so frightfully inaccurate and skewed and so unscholastic. I can counter that guy any time and expose his errors. So he recommended me a REAL scholar (not an apologetist like McDowell who allows his primary function as an apologetist to cloud the evidence) and he suggested FF Bruce - his book The Canon of Scripture. I also read Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament.

All fundies should read those books. It's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who fully understands the Canon of Scriptures to defend inerrancy. There is no magic in the Canon. It's as flawed as you would expect any collection of ancient literature to be.

I also read other books on paleography and serious textual criticism and I found that even if there are no problems with the Canon, there are huge problems with the transmission of the books as well as the origin of the books. Most of these books are anonymous and we don't know if our version is indeed the correct version. For example, Papias said in the 1st century that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a gospel in THE HEBREW TONGUE. He also heard that it'd been translated into Greek by different translators. In the ancient world, that's how copying was done. You read the text and you do your own translation. They didn't have official translators. Papias says Matthew was originally in Hebrew. Scholars have confirmed that - if my memory is right, even Leon Morris has confirmed that or at least he says that is one possibility. Who translated OUR Greek version? Was ours the best translation? What if a madman did it? Nobody knows. Oh but the Spirit of God is supposed to hover over the translation and ensure only truth is printed. But rubbish!! We know that some quotations of Jesus from Matthew could not have been said by Jesus because they were meant to be a pun that could only work in Koine Greek and not Aramaic which was what Jesus spoke. We also know that the many Old Testament prophecies mentioned by Matthew were only prophecies because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew OT into the Greek Septuagint.

The more we know, the less likely it is for the Bible to be accurate and I'm not even talking about it being divine.

What am I to do? The human brain is good at dichotomies which is why we are able to multi-task. I accept that religion is very much an integral part of humanity. It's a bequest to us by our genes which, after aeons of evolution, encoded God in us so that we are hardwired to be religious. There are some uses for God in the survival of the human species. For one thing, it takes away our terror for death. Every gene strives to survive. Every living thing strives for survival. But for the human being, there is a further problem. He understands futurity and he has self-consciousness. He KNOWS he's going to die. He's constantly in a fight-or-flight state and the adrenalin pump into his blood tells him he must act. But he IS going to die, whatever he does. Religion affords an outlet. It gives dignity to him even in death. He accepts that he will trust God with his death and afterlife.

I have decided that it's silly to pretend to have knowledge that God exists. Of course I don't know that God exists. In fact, all knowledge points to his non-existence. In other words, I KNOW God does not exist. But my heart tells me I can depend on God. Tennyson expresses this most beautifully in his poem - I can only remember a bit of it - he hopes that knowledge and heart may make one music. I will let knowledge and my heart make one music in my mind - I know there is no God and yet will I believe in Him and when someone I love dies, I will seek God for comfort. I will not spurn what my genes have bequeathed on me. I accept my humanity and I accept my God.

That's the best way I can express my religion. I will never again seek this elusive God for evidence of his existence because I know he doesn't exist. But my heart will cherish the faith I've inherited from my ancestors.

200th Anniversary of Charles Darwin

2009-02-28T01:08:00.002+09:00

The beamishboy is celebrating Darwin's 200th Anniversary. I've borrowed some books from the library on evolution. In the Christian Teen forums that I go to, I notice that most American teenagers do not believe in the truth of evolution. What's become of Americans? What kind of education do they get there?

I just hope that all Christians will put a stop to Creationist lies. I discovered a couple of years ago that they actually circulate FALSE information as facts in order to prove their ridiculous beliefs. I can list some of the lies. But there are Christian websites that are doing this at the moment. They expose the lies of Creationists and they tell the world that you don't have to believe in Creationist lies in order to accept the Christian faith.

Creationists are such an embarrassment to us Christians. I daresay 99% of Creationists live just across the Atlantic. Just what did the Mayflower do to them?

The Hols!!!!!

2009-02-13T19:36:00.003+09:00

Yoopsies doodles! Toads and poodles!!!

The hols begin tomorrow. It's the long leave for us but it's not really that long even though it's called "long". It's just a week.

Cheeeeeers!!!!

Accession Dinner

2009-02-07T21:13:00.003+09:00

Last night was my first small concert for the year. This was at a dinner to celebrate the Queen's Accession. My House Master and I performed with our clarinets. We played Mendelssohn's Konzertstuck (Op 114) for piano and two clarinets. I had a large stocking placed over my exposed toes and cast so even though I used crutches to go on stage, I didn't look too weird. My Master called it a "noble injury" sustained while playing rugby for the school. I like that!!! We went through all three movements smoothly and without a hitch.

Another calamity befalls the beamishboy

2009-02-01T18:05:00.003+09:00

When things go bad, they really do. Not only have I to go round on crutches, but I've caught a bad chill. It's all my fault. There was a lot of snow the other day and some of us decided to burrow through a mountain of snow. I may not walk but I sure can burrow. The House Master was furious with us but there's no rule that students are not permitted to burrow in snow.

But I've caught this horrid cold and it's affecting my rehearsal. It's very hard to practise on my clarinet for that solo performance. Particularly tough is Baermann's quintet, especially the 3rd movement which is allegro and has the tendency of making me breathless. My nose runs and it's pretty disgusting if I don't pause to blow my nose. How can one practise an allegro piece if one can't play an entire phrase without stopping?

My House Master told the Concertmaster that I was "totally and utterly irresponsible". But the Concertmaster was more intrigued that I could burrow through the snow with my right foot in a cast and he even asked me to show him where we did the burrowing but my House Master looked so angry that the Concertmaster was compelled to chide me a little. It was quite funny, I thought.

The worry is I CAN'T PLAY THE CLARINET WITH THIS DREADFUL COLD!!!

My injured foot

2009-01-31T18:23:00.002+09:00

I now lie in bed nursing an injured foot. I can get around but on crutches. At the last rugby match against ____, I felt a sharp pain on my right foot during a scrum. I must have twisted my foot or some fat bloke must have stepped on it. Everyone felt that the other team must have sent older boys to the match but we are a sport and won't say anything. The pain made it impossible for me to walk normally and I had to be helped out of the pitch.

There was a clear swelling on my right foot and Coach said it was a broken metatarsal. Sure enough the x-ray pictures confirmed that it was a fractured metatarsal. My foot was wrapped up and immobilised in a cast and I've since been moving around on crutches. My Mum sent a nurse to look after me but I sent her away. I can manage on my own quite well; it's a minor injury that we knights are used to. It's not like I'm dying of cancer or something.

My only worry is I'll look a sight on stage. There's a concert and I'm the solo clarinettist. I'll be playing just a movement of a concerto but an ENTIRE quintet. Baermann's with 3 movements. Someone said I'd be the first person to perform on stage with the toes exposed. He meant performers who play classical music. I'm sure rock stars and dancers have exposed more than their toes!

The Knight of Truth Banished from Atheists' Lair

2009-01-31T17:54:00.006+09:00

The beamishboy has been banished.

As some of you know, particularly my classmates to whom I've shown the various posts I have placed in an atheist forum, I went to an atheist site a couple of months ago and I posted in various places a defence of religion.

The tide of opposition against me was phenomenal.

1. Everyone dismissed my arguments rudely and without giving counter arguments.

2. Some went into obscenities when abusing me and my parents were targeted.

3. The moderators started out by telling me that I could not post anything with colours and different fonts. I complied with that.

4. Because I complied with (3) above, the moderators could not do anything against me. Nonetheless they conspired and pulled out all my posts and dumped them in an obscure part of the forum and placed a highly objectionable and obscene word in the title of the thread.

5. The moderators stopped me from posting anywhere or answering the points raised by atheists. Any post of mine would automatically be sent to that obscure part of the forum.

Why did the atheists in the forum do all this?

It should be noted from the start that they knew my arguments were sound and mature. Everyone thought I was a grown-up. They were SURE I was an adult from THE INCISIVENESS AND MATURITY of my posts. They said so themselves. But they didn't want to admit to themselves that atheism was wrong. Since they have already accepted that I was right and had to be silenced, it's either I'm silenced or they have to believe in God. They have to avoid God at all costs. That's the obstinacy of corporate atheism.

They wanted me out because I managed to go for the jugular in the usual theist v atheist argument. They wanted me to argue like a fundamentalist and because I didn't, they insisted I was not a Christian. This was despite having told them that I was an altar boy and a choir boy (until late last year when my voice broke) and recently made thurifer in the Church of England.

I've come to this inescapable conclusion - atheism is very much a religion and atheists need a great deal of faith to continue in their non-belief. They defend atheism fiercely and more violently than any Christian might however fundamentalist he might be. This is because an atheist has no real code of ethics. They are answerable to no higher order and they can be highly abusive and unscrupulous in their battle against Christians and other theists.

Atheists in America are always crying foul murder and always claiming that they are persecuted. I read somewhere that atheists are the least trusted people in America. I used to think that fundamentalists were nasty to atheists from what I've been reading in atheistic circles but I understand better now. Christians have every reason to fear atheists - they will do ANYTHING to get what they want and if they want to protect their flock of atheists from roaming into the dreaded realm of religion, they will do anything to stub out religion.

You see, it's so tough for an atheist to remain an atheist. Their humanity is crying out for a belief in God but they persistently refuse to pay heed to their biological needs. Couple that with the total absence of any code of ethics and morality and you have an android with no conscience and no sense of guilt.

I used to do battle against fundamentalists who don't accept evolution, etc. But as St Paul says, ours is not a battle against flesh and blood. We are up against powers and principalities and these are the bane of atheism.

I am not saying all atheists have an agenda against religion. No, there are many good atheists. A person who genuinely doesn't believe in God can be a good person too. But it's when they decide to follow a group (this can be in an organisation or any group) when they have a clear anti-Christ agenda. That's when they are quite fearsome because they aren't bound by any concept of fairplay or morality. Like an army of ants, they will demolish anything, be it tradition, culture, religion and morality. They are formidable because there is no conscience to restrain them.

May God turn the hearts of atheists so that they can live meaningful lives and be trustworthy and accepted in the community.

EDIT: They even encouraged one another to use my email address in dating sites and gay sites even though they knew I'm underage. But the beamishboy welcomes spam cos I can get rid of them so easily. It takes more time for them to register my email in dating and gay sites. It's hilarious. One of the sites asked me to confirm that the "94" in my email was not my year of birth. I wanted to ask him what he thought it was, my age? Hehe.

THE SCOURGE OF ATHEISTS

2009-01-22T16:10:00.002+09:00

Howdy folksies and blokesies!!!!!

I recently went into an atheist forum and I argued so well that I upset a whole lot of atheists so much so that I have been officially branded "THE SCOURGE OF ATHEISTS" by the World Council of Atheists. The Atheistic Archbishop of Babylon has issued a ruling that all atheists should not engage the beamishboy in an argument. I have been declared ANATHEMA by the Atheistic Archbishop.

Beamishboy the Conqueror and the Conquest of Germany

2008-12-21T02:16:00.006+09:00

Folksies and blokesies!!!

The beamishboy recently invaded Germany and remained there until a few days ago. Anyway, this entry is mainly for the benefit of a friend of mine who's an architect (no, no, no, not a student who aspires to be an architect but a highly renowned architect of advanced years!!!) who will no doubt take a deep interest in the architecture of the following buildings.

This is a night pic taken of the Dom at Romer in Frankfurt. The spire is undergoing serious restoration work, as can be seen on one side of it.

This is a view taken from the top of the tower of the cathedral in Nordlingen. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this town was filmed also from an aerial view. That was the part when everyone went in the lift that zoomed out of earth - I don't quite remember the story now; it's been such a long time since I last took any interest in Roald Dahl.

This is a pic Lonely Planet might wish to buy from me. It's possibly the best photograph I took in my entire holiday. It's the Rathaus (not a house for rats but a town hall) in Bamberg. The bridge divides the town into the ecclesiastical part of town (on the left) and the secular part of town (on the right). The town hall was placed in the centre to show impartiality.

THE SENTENCING OF THE BEAMISHBOY

2008-09-24T07:12:00.002+08:00

The earthly powers have met and the fate of the beamishboy has been decided. The beamishboy will be allowed non-school related internet access of no more than an hour a day. That includes emails, chats, surfing and forums. That's not very much time!!! But the beamishboy will soldier on.

POPE OBSTRUCTED SEX ABUSE INQUIRIES

2008-09-23T15:12:00.007+08:00

This link made me very sad: CLICK HERE

How could he have done it? And he's now the Pope. I've obtained a copy of his letter from this site: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf and I've obtained a copy of the Order from Vatican from CBS News website which was referred by an RC website. It's 40 pages long but the beamishboy has soldiered on and what I've read is not good at all. It deals with the procedure when there is sexual abuse by priests of people including children.

A 2001 letter (click here) talks about the need to review the 1962 procedure. But as matters stand there has been no review and this has been like 7 years? So the procedure in 1962 still stands.

All I can say is I'll never be a Roman Catholic even if I agree with its theology which I don't in the first place.

Here's a summary of the beamishboy's summary of the current position in the RC church (until some review has been made) in handling sex abuse cases involving priests and even where it involves minors. I have included paragraph numbers so you can check for yourself.

Paragraph 4 allows for the guilty to be transferred to another assignment.

Paragraph 11 deals with the strictest secrecy in which the entire investigations and proceedings must be sealed under. It must be regarded the secret of the Holy Office. There's a lot of stress on the secrecy in this paragraph. It also states that everyone must observe the strictest secrecy "under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae". It repeats the secrecy many times and the penalty or censure.

Paragraph 13 requires the oath of keeping the secret from "the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses". So, even the victim is required to take the oath of secrecy on pain of excommunication.

Paragraph 18 places a duty on the victim to inform his confessor of the act within one month and if he fails to do so, he "falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae.."

Paragraph 35 talks about the need of two witnesses who know both the victim and the priest. If they cannot find two such witnesses, they will have to investigate elsewhere "as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated priest was the case". You see what line the pope is taking?

Paragraph 42 (a) "If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, he (the Ordinary) should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed."

Paragraph 44 allows the Ordinary to decide whether to proceed with other accusations from other victims against the same priest or just to act on the one accusation. This the Ordinary can do according to his own choice and conscience.

Paragraph 52 deals with the accused priest before a Judge within the church. Note that everything from the investigation to the judgment and sentence is entirely an internal church affair governed by strict rules of secrecy. Paragraph 52 says that "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."

Paragraph 70 states that secrecy is vitally important. Not observing it "obliges under serious sin (sub gravi).

Paragraphs 71 and 73 defines "the worst crime" as homosexual abuse by a priest and any sort of sexual abuse involving youths.

Appendix 27 on page 25 gives the format of the Oath to be taken even by the victim to ensure secrecy. Are children exempted from taking this Oath? No, according to the Appendix. They must still take the Oath that includes excommunication latae sententiae ipso facto (whatever that means). Nobody can exempt anyone from taking the Oath except by the Supreme Pontiff.

There is a huge section on how the victim is interrogated on his or her personal lifestyle but the beamishboy is too tired to go on.

A DAY OF MOURNING

2008-09-22T22:49:00.002+08:00

The beamishboy has suffered a cruel blow of fate. A minor indiscretion was all it took. I was caught accessing internet in school when I should be in class. The matter was blown out of proportion. Parents were informed. Suspicion of addiction. The usual fake concern by adults for the poor little thing. He needs counselling. Internet addiction is so common among the young. He needs to have restricted access into the internet. Parents are more than eager to cooperate. J has been informed and he will enforce whatever my parents decide. J is a good chap but don't forget, he's a very old man and he won't turn a blind eye.

My parents will draw a timetable for me. J will enforce it. The life as I know it is over.

Portugal

2008-09-19T14:53:00.003+08:00

After posting on where one may buy the best gingerbread in the whole world, I thought I should not forget to mention a really great shop in Lisbon that is just across the road from this restaurant. I had a good time in this restaurant more because there was so much water round it. The food was nothing special; it was good but I think I prefer pastries. I'm using this restaurant as a guide to get to my pastry shop which is just across the road from this restaurant.

Sorry, there is a park after you cross the road but it's a small park and you just cut through the park and you'll get to this pastry shop. I can't post a pic of the shop because the beamishboy features too much in the photos. Hehe. But here is the wrapper of the pastries. This shop is really cool. It sells the best egg tarts in the world.

2008-09-19T07:35:00.003+08:00

The beamishboy loves food!!!

I've posted a photograph of the best meal on earth - steak and kidney pie at the George & Vulture. Now, I'll take my readers to a quiet lonely shop that sells the best gingerbread on this planet. Here's a picture of the shop that I went to one afternoon. I've blocked off J who's just emerged from the shop with a bag of gingerbread he's got for me!!! A little about J whom you'll see more often (blocked off of course). J is a dear friend to me. He used to work for the family before my Grandpa passed away. He now accompanies me to many places that I go to and he will usually be connected to my photos in some way - either he's taking my pics or he's in the photos. He's very old but he's quite a sport and, like me, he loves to travel.

Vegetarianism will make you a vegetable.

2008-09-17T16:12:00.002+08:00

Folksies blokesies!!!! The latest earth-shattering research shows that vegetarianism can in fact turn you into a vegetable if it persists long enough. Perhaps not quite a vegetable but your brain can shrink significantly.

You need B12 which is found in milk and dairy products, meat, liver and fish. Booze is also bad for the brain and can cause shrinkage. Being fat is also another factor that can cause shrinkage.

The beamishboy eats meat, liver and fish, drinks milk, does not drink alcohol and is slim. Ergo, the beamishboy has a good brain. Hehe.

Here's the article:

Click here for the link

Brain shrink risk of veggie diet

By JANE SYMONS

Published: 10 Sep 2008

TURNING vegetarian could shrink your brain – but Marmite sarnies help protect it.

People with low levels of vitamin B12 are SIX times more likely to suffer brain loss, researchers at Oxford University have discovered.

Vegans and vegetarians — such as Heather Mills, Russell Brand and Big Brother's Chanelle Houghton — are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system.

Yeast extracts such as Marmite are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.

When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.

Here Sun Health looks at the science of smart eating.

GO EASY ON THE BOOZE

Brain scans of more than 1,800 people found that people who downed 14 drinks or more a week had 1.6 per cent more brain shrinkage than teetotallers.

Women in their seventies were the most at risk.

Beer does less damage than wine according to a study in Alcohol and Alcoholism.

Researchers found that the hippocampus - the part of the brain that stores memories — was 10 per cent smaller in beer drinkers than those who stuck to wine.

And don’t inhale, cannabis has been shown to have the same brain-rotting effect.

EAT LESS

Being overweight or obese is linked to brain loss, Swedish researchers discovered.

Scans of around 300 women found that those with brain shrink had an average body mass index of 27

And for every one point increase in their BMI the loss rose by 13 to 16 per cent.

A BMI 25 to 30 is classed as overweight, above 30 is clinically obese. Calculate your BMI

Dr Deborah Gustafson of University Hospital in Göteborg says obesity increases the risk of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, which are both thought to contribute to brain drain.

She adds: “Obesity may also increase the secretion of cortisol, which could lead to atrophy.”

GET FISHY

The omega-3 oils found in fish reduce the risk of dementia and other mental disorders says Fernando Gómez-Pinilla of the University of California, Los Angeles.

He says they increase flexibility in synapses in the brain - the bits that transmit information - and boost memory and learning.

A Brief History of the Church

2008-09-17T06:43:00.003+08:00

I have been asked many times how the church began. A common question asked by RCs is what church did the Apostles found? They look expectantly in your eyes hoping that you would say "The RC church of course!" but that would be a dreadful untruth. Many RCs are under the misconception that because Protestantism only came about in the Middle Ages, the Protestant church couldn't have been founded by the Apostles.

What they fail to understand is that to the Apostles, it's the teachings that are important. St Paul writes that he who comes to you with a different gospel and different teachings from what are taught by the Apostles, let him be accursed.

What then did the Apostles teach? What better way to look at the Apostles' teachings than to look at what they wrote.

In a Christian forum, I happened to write a short history of the church. Scriptural quotations came from my memory but they are relatively accurate. I thought it best to reproduce what I wrote in this blog so that I can refer future inquirers here. Here it is:

Jesus' first disciples started house churches. They met in homes and carried out the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. The manner of worship, the doctrines and practices were all clearly written and detailed for us in the New Testament.

The churches flourished. They were not referred to as a single church under a single man. They were called churches. That is why addresses were made to the Seven Churches, etc (as in the Book of Revelation). But the churches were under severe persecution by some Roman emperors. The early christians in these churches stood firm to their ground and many were martyred.

It is difficult to say that there were no departures from apostolic teaching in the early church. Even Paul made it clear that there were threats from various quarters that were preaching a different gospel.

Then came the conversion of the Roman emperor. It was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, persecution stopped. But all temple priests converted immediately and many joined the ranks of churches formed under Roman rule. You can't blame them. They had no vocation apart from religion and since the official religion had changed, they became overnight "Christians". Anyway, this was a common occurrence in the ancient world.

Even before the conversion of the Emperor, there were seeds of heretical teachings. These can be seen in the non-canonical works - writings that were not accepted as divinely inspired because they did not meet the criteria for the canon - they may not have met the "rule of faith", were of dubious apostolic origin or were not accepted by the people of God as genuine. One thread of the "wrong" teachings are the natural human need of a motherly figure. Most religions have goddesses. Christianity is starkly patriarchical. One of the Marys could have been chosen: Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalen. Naturally, Mary the mother of Jesus could evoke stronger emotions. She was there at his cross and she was, after all, the mother.

A sign that even before the conversion of the Roman emperor, this need for a mother had germinated to the practice of venerating her can be seen in the non-canonical/heretical gospel called the Gospel of James. The Gospel of James is the only book in which Mary was elevated to a height totally unknown in the canonical books and venerated. Some people today try not to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel of James is as heretical as the Gospel of Thomas, etc by calling it the Protoevangelion of James. But make no mistake about it - it was called the Gospel of James since the earliest times. But all are agreed that this book is non-canonical.

The NT books on the other hand are very un-Marian in a sense. The epistles did not breathe a word about Mary. The only mere mention of Mary appears in the Gospels and for good reason: she was bearing Christ. In other parts of the Gospels where she makes an appearance, it's usually to show how misguided she was. Examples are:

1. The temple scene. Mary and Joseph cannot find the 12-year-old Jesus and finally finds him discoursing with the Temple Priests. When Mary remonstrates, Jesus retorts, "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"

2. The gospels say that Jesus' family - including his brothers want him to go home to presumably Galilee because many even think he has gone mad. On one occasion, his Disciples tell Jesus that His mother is at the door asking to see Him. Jesus replies, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then turning to his disciples, Jesus says, "Those who listen to me are my mother, my brothers and sisters".

3. A woman in the crowd shouts out to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts that gave thee suckle and the womb that gave thee birth." Jesus replies, "Rather, blessed are those who do the will of God". This appears in Luke's gospel.

The cult of Mary was a natural progression of our human need for a soft motherly touch to our otherwise patriarchical faith. But it cannot be considered even remotely apostolic.

It was easy after Rome had converted for this cult of Mary to flourish. And flourished it did. First she Mary became "Mother of God" or the Theotokos. That was OK because presumably, the thrust of the whole idea was to stress on the divine nature of Jesus. Any objection to the name for Mary is countered with the emotional assertion that Jesus is God and anyone who refuses to call Mary the Mother of God is in fact denying divinity to Jesus. Century after century sees the slow departure of the church from the original teachings of the Apostles. Mary is soon crowned the Queen of Heaven. She becomes co-redeemer with Christ because didn't she bear Jesus in the first place. She becomes sinless (as Christ is). She is declared not to have been tainted with the original sin. As if that's not enough, she is bodily assumed into heaven (that's what Assumption means) and suffers no death.

There are many other departures from apostolic teachings by the church and I've only named one. The selling of indulgences to enrich the coffers of the church is one. Of course with the Reformation, these departures are highlighted and a call is made for Christians to return to apostolic teachings.

Some will say, "But Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church".

That verse if correctly interpreted simply means "Death will have no power over Christians". Gates of Hades is the common phrase that means death. The church in the NT always refers to Christians and never church officials.

But even if we take the church to be church officials and the Gates of Hades to be the powers of the Devil, that promise has still been fulfilled. That promise does not mean that Christians will never be deceived by false teachings. The epistles of Paul show us that there were many false teachings floating about then and by important figures too. It does not mean that the church (ie Christians) can never be deceived and for any length of time. But if that interpretation is to be taken, it does mean that ultimately, the truth of God will prevail and not the powers of the Devil. As we have seen in history, that promise is fulfilled with the Reformation and the attention of the whole of Christendom is turned to the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles and the importance of reading the NT by the common people is emphasised when it was once forbidden or discouraged.

That is a brief summary of the history of the church by the beamishboy.

2008-09-10T00:08:00.003+08:00

The Booker Shortlist has been announced. Have a look at it. A pity Sir Salman Rushdie didn't make it beyond the Longlist. I'm glad Amitav Ghosh is in. I just got his The Hungry Tide and I think he's a great writer.

Will the beamishboy see his name on the Booker Longlist next year? Let me check with Faber and Faber, my publishers. Hehe. It's always Faber and Faber, isn't it? They publish all my Lit books anyway.

2008-09-08T23:28:00.002+08:00

I have a few questions on underage porn after reading this on the BBC. Would I be guilty of producing underage porn if I took pics of myself with my own camera? Would I be charged and convicted? If I posted the pics online (not that I would), would that be disseminating porn? Isn't the law an ass? Isn't this another example of the subjugation of young people by self-appointed adults? It's a crime for me to take pics of myself! Wow!

2008-09-08T23:02:00.002+08:00

Folks, go to this site and watch the video. This is really fascinating. The article in the BBC says that in 2001, the Talibans destroyed two huge statues of Buddha that were built two thousand years ago in this amazing structure of caves and secret tunnels. Although I was of course around in 2001, I don't recall hearing anything about it back then. Why didn't the world put a stop to the madness of these Talibans? America did nothing because there was nothing in it for them?

What a shame! What kind of world will the "adults" hand over to the "children"?

2008-09-08T15:24:00.003+08:00

Saepe ne utile quidem est scire quid futurum sit

Recently, a friend of mine was told the bad news that he had an incurable form of cancer. He was told the worst. Or rather, his parents were told and they in turn thought it best to tell him and he told me.

I don't blame his parents. It must have been a difficult decision to take. Deep within me, I agree with Cicero but would add that often it's just that we don't know. Since ignorance doesn't change the fact at all, neither should knowledge change our mood or affect us in any way.

Vita perseverat. To know or not to know? With knowledge, one can prepare better. After all, didn't Seneca say, Timendi causa est nescire? Some will say it contradicts what Cicero says but I think they complement each other. Cicero's quotation is good if you don't want to know. But if you already knew, Seneca's wisdom applies.

2008-09-08T07:18:00.004+08:00

As I've said before, I don't really care for politics. But I just got a spam email that might be interesting. It refers me to Time magazine that tells us that Mayor Palin is a book burner - she once tried to ban a list of books and tried to get the librarian fired when she refused. Read Time magazine

I also discovered in this site what the list of books was. Librarian.net Read in particular the list of books Palin wanted to ban.

I'll reproduce the list and try to see what her objection might be (my comments appear immediately after; where I have no comments, it means I haven't read those books):

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess The reason must be obvious.
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley I can't think what's so objectionable.
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer I think it must be this line in the Merchant's Tale: "Gan pullen the smog and in he throng".
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland The reason is obvious but this is such an old book. There are more modern ones that will make this book seem so tame.
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling What's wrong with a book for kids?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It’s Okay if You Don’t Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence Mild by today's standard.
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding Oh come on!
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck I really don't know what's wrong with this except perhaps Palin objects to the murder scene at the end when the little guy blew off the brain of the big guy.
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez I've just bought the book. Haven't read it yet.
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women’s Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl I've read other books by this guy. Isn't he the guy famous for writing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and other such innocuous kids' stories?
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot This is a marvellous work by Eliot. I can't see any objection to it. Perhaps Palin is afraid of a portrayal of epileptic seizures?
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger I think this is a boring book. Didn't like it but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil’s Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare I think Palin should read this and she'll understand why she sounds like Shylock.
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee I saw the film two years ago.
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare What can possibly be wrong with this except for the disguise that crosses gender? That might be deemed wrong by ultra-conservative right-wingers.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff Ban this, by all means. One should only use the Oxford Concise or the Shorter Oxford. Hehe.
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

Semi-vegetarianism

2008-09-07T21:37:00.004+08:00

Shun meat! See this article why eating meat is not green. Read

It's a long and tedious article but briefly, the process of producing meat increases the greenhouse effect. Meat production produces more greenhouse gases than transport.

The beamishboy will be a semi-vegetarian. The occasional steak and kidney pie and KFC zinger is all right though. Nobody can give up the good old English fare which means lots of chunky meat. French food is too dainty for real men. Hehe.

Here's a pic of the best meal on this planet. Pic was taken at my favourite restaurant, the George & Vulture. This restaurant was mentioned in Charles Dickens' Pickwick Papers.

2008-09-02T11:14:00.005+08:00

LOST CIVILISATION

Mankind has always been fascinated by lost civilisations. Forget Atlantis and all the rubbish that our fertile imagination has churned out. Researchers have found a whole new set of cities in what was thought to be virgin jungle deep in the Amazon.

Read it here.

I reproduce the report here:

'Lost towns' discovered in Amazon

A remote area of the Amazon river basin was once home to densely populated towns, Science journal reports.

The Upper Xingu, in west Brazil, was once thought to be virgin forest, but in fact shows traces of extensive human activity.

Researchers found evidence of a grid-like pattern of settlements connected by road networks and arranged around large central plazas.

There are signs of farming, wetland management, and possibly fish farms.

The settlements are now almost completely overgrown by rainforest.

The ancient urban communities date back to before the first Europeans set foot in the Upper Xingu region of the Brazilian Amazon in the 15th Century.

Urban planning

Professor Mike Heckenberger, from the University of Florida, in Gainesville, said: "These are not cities, but this is urbanism, built around towns."

"They have quite remarkable planning and self-organisation, more so than many classical examples of what people would call urbanism," he said. Although the remains are almost invisible, they can be identified by members of the Kuikuro tribe, who are thought to be direct descendents of the people who built the towns.

The tell-tale traces included "dark earth" that indicated past human waste dumps or farming, and concentrations of pottery shards and earthworks.

The researchers also made use of satellite images and GPS navigation to uncover and map the settlements over the course of a decade.

The communities consisted of clusters of 60-hectare (150-acre) towns and smaller villages spread out over the rainforest.

Road network

Like medieval European and ancient Greek towns, those forming the Amazonian urban landscape were surrounded by large walls. These were composed of earthworks, the remains of which have survived.

Each community had an identical road, always pointing north-east to south-west, which are connected to a central plaza.

The roads were always oriented this way in keeping with the mid-year summer solstice.

Evidence was found of dams and artificial ponds - thought to have been used for fish farming - as well as open areas and large compost heaps.

The people who once lived in the settlements are thought to have been wiped out by European colonists and the diseases they brought with them.

2008-09-02T10:08:00.003+08:00

Trouble in Bangkok

Bangkok is now under a state of emergency.

For details, click here

Here is a pic taken by the beamishboy in Bangkok. It's hilarious how a forum friend of mine told me that his nephew thought I didn't really exist because I couldn't have travelled that much. But the beamishboy has been to lots of places. I've watermarked this pic to claim copyright over it. I shouldn't be surprised if newspapers all over the world want to publish my photo because it does in a nutshell encapsulate all the beauty and oriental-ness of Thailand.

Answered Prayer?

2008-09-01T23:14:00.003+08:00

I recently recovered from a bout of high fever and flu. A friend of mine told me to give thanks to God for an answered prayer. The truth is I didn't pray for healing during my illness. When my fever was very high, I vaguely recall reciting the Kyries only because it is repetitive and possibly I was bored but I didn't pray.

Do modern people still expect to die from a fever? If 99.99% of the time, we have total recovery from a bout of fever, do we still attribute the recovery to answered prayers, if prayers had been said in the first place? In the unlikely event that one dies from a fever, one wouldn't be in the position to talk about unanswered prayers. More likely, stories will abound about answered prayers only because most of the time, the outcome appears very much as if prayers had been answered.

I think this best illustrates our lives: We live in a world with minor earthquakes all the time. Those within a five-mile radius to the epicentre of the earthquake will be utterly destroyed. Those outside of the five-mile radius survive. Most of the time, we are too far from the epicentre. So we live to tell the tale of answered prayers. Sometimes, we are close to the epicentre and we don't live to tell tales of unanswered prayers. We just die. Sometimes we are far enough to the epicentre and we survive the earthquake but we sustain injuries. We're still able to tell tales of answered prayers. Dum spiro, spero.

There'll come a time when we'll be too close to the epicentre of an earthquake. That's when our tales of answered prayers will come to an end. Others will continue to tell their own amazing tales in their own lives until they too meet their end.

2008-08-31T15:01:00.003+08:00

Guess what folks? Just see this video.

Click here for the video

It's hilarious. If people "joke about people from this type of school", it's only because they're jealous. Of course we're normal people!!! We don't need boys from "a London school" to tell us that! But to be fair to the people in the video, they have good things to say about everything which goes to show how honest they are.

Just as an aside, Hawks makes a special guest appearance, pimples, warts and all!!! If you want to know who I am, you can find my name on the Classics Board! A Sixth Former many many years ago!!! Hehe.

Baa Baa Black Sheep Have You Any Wool?

2008-08-31T14:42:00.003+08:00

This is something I've got to take pics of when the time comes. But I have no idea when she's going to do it. You can read the article in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7590346.stm

Here's the article:

Sheep to march over London Bridge

A woman who was made a Freeman of the City of London last year is to exercise her right to drive sheep across London Bridge to highlight two causes.

Amanda Cottrell, from Challock in Kent, aims to promote attempts to raise £50m to restore Canterbury Cathedral and a scheme backing local food production.

She will be joined by Viscount Linley and historian Dr David Starkey.

The right of Freemen of the City to drive sheep across the bridge is a privilege dating from the 11th Century.

Mrs Cottrell, 67, a former High Sheriff of Kent, said: "This is a unique and, I hope, effective way to raise the profile of both these issues. I am very much looking forward to the event.

Hold tight

"Something like this hasn't happened for about 10 years so it's a huge deal.

"It's a fantastic way of promoting two causes but we will have to hold on to the sheep because the police are concerned they might launch themselves into the Thames."

The campaign raise funds to restore Canterbury Cathedral was started in 2006.

Fundraisers have said deteriorating stonework and a leaking roof mean parts of the Kent cathedral might have to be closed unless the cash is raised.

The cathedral, which was founded by St Augustine in 597 and is visited by about a million people each year, has been damaged by age, pollution and World War II bombs.

2008-08-28T14:35:00.004+08:00

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II

No respectable blog can remain respectable without some comment on politics. Let me take a shot at it.

We've heard it time and again that Obama will be the first Black American President. Personally, I'm opposed to any classification of a person according to his race. If we are to be truly non-racialist, we should not think of him as a Black American any more than we should calculate the ethnic composition in his blood.

What surprised me when I first read about him is his name. Like most people my age, I'm not politically minded. But I received a spam email that says that Obama was related to Osama and that he was a devout Muslim. I looked at his full name and I thought to myself that it was the most un-Christian name I've ever heard. You can't baptise someone Barack, can you? St Barack? And what about Hussein? The only Hussein I know is Sadam and that chap definitely wasn't a Christian.

I may not be a racist and I don't care if you're purple or blue in colour and you hold the world's most important post: that of the US President but I would expect the President to be not related to Osama or Sadam Hussein.

For a while, I thought there was some truth in that email. But how could a relation of Osama run for President? So I checked wikipedia which gives the final word on anything. Guess what? He is a Christian, of the United Church of Christ. I've not heard of that but wikipedia says it's a mainline Protestant church in America. That means he can't be related to Osama or Sadam and even if he is, he can't have the same violent agenda as the two of them.

The moral of this story: Don't believe all the spam email you read. Barack Hussein Obama II, despite his very unusual name, is a Christian and is not an Osama or a Sadam Hussein. My advice to adults is to vote for the chap with the least pretension. I can't vote for anybody because I don't live in America and even if I did, ageist politicians have arbitrarily deprived me of the right to vote because of age. We can't talk about universal suffrage if we ban people below 18 from voting.

2008-08-26T16:52:00.003+08:00

Yo folksies!

Recently a friend of mine who's an expert on buildings and architectural design told me about Cordoba as one of the contenders for the largest church. I never once thought of Cordoba as anything special. It looks like I've been to many interesting places without really noting how special these places are. I remember moving around these columns thinking how poor the lighting was.

Here is a pic of Cordoba from the outside. Someone tried to pick my waist pouch but ho ho ho, he couldn't succeed with me. The beamishboy foils all pickpocketing attempts with the greatest of ease. I use a perfectly anti-pickpocket waist pouch. You can't unclasp my pouch from my waist and run away with it because it's secured with a padlock. You can't cut the "belt" of the pouch because the inside of the belt contains two metallic strips that are totally cut-proof. You might succeed with a chain saw though but you'll probably cut my body in half. You can't cut the pouch itself because there is a very strong wire mesh surrounding the pouch - it will withstand all attempts at cutting, unless again if you use a chain saw.

So there was the pickpocket trying to get at my pouch without success. I feigned ignorance.

Back to Cordoba. This is the outside of Cordoba. It's really huge.

This is the inside of Cordoba. There are a lot of these pillars all over the church. I had a headache when I walked in the church with my head turned up so that I looked at the ceiling and the pillars. But then again, I might have had the same headache walking that way anywhere. But the red and white stripes are a bit boring after a while.

I'm sorry my above pic isn't very clear. Here is a pic I took from wikipedia, the greatest source of any information on this planet. I really don't know how they managed to get this photo. It's perfect. The lighting is just right. And there's nobody around. My above pic shows only the top part because below are the myriads of people milling about and tourists listening to talks by curators and guides. How did wikipedia get such a beautiful pic? Kudos to them.

NOTE: This pic is taken from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mosque_of_cordoba_.JPG

WHO AM I?

2008-08-24T11:49:00.003+08:00

I've been asked by many of my readers as to who I really am. Many of the questions are sent to tithon@gmail.com. Some are sent to beamishboy94@gmail.com. The second email address is to be preferred because I access it far more often.

So, the question remains who I might possibly be. The Pied Piper or the Beamishboy or the Gallant Knight are names that have been used to denote me.

If you are observant, you will notice that one outstanding feature that stands out is my bravery. Look again at the Bali funeral pic in which I courageously stood in the way of a man carrying a machete. National Geographic has offered to pay millions of dollars for that pic but I've refused. It's a private matter.

Just look at this photo and you will see the same thing. This pic was taken in Bali. Indonesian dignitaries are releasing turtles into the sea at Kuta Beach in Bali as a symbol of peace. Bali has been the site of at least two major bombings by Muslim terrorists. You can see tourists taking pics of the turtles being released but look at this pic again and ask yourselves where the beamishboy was standing. Nobody else stands in front of the dignitaries and in the way of the turtles. There are policemen and security officers to ensure that. But there you are - the beamishboy stands where no man dares to stand and goes where the faint-hearted can only dream of. Some have suggested that I do not have a corporeal body but am a floating spirit like Ariel. But my identity shall remain a secret. The beamishboy is a knight of legendary fame; he rides his snow-white steed defending truth and resides in his famous Castle of Truth, the pics of which you have already seen in this blog.

2008-08-23T17:59:00.004+08:00

And now I'll post pics of my other castles all over the world. Here's one of my castles in the Far East. Sorry I forgot to remove the photo of that fat man stuck to the wall of my castle. He's a vain little fellow, isn't he?

2008-08-23T07:20:00.001+08:00

Here's my Castle of Truth seen from another angle.

2008-08-22T17:25:00.002+08:00

This is my famous Castle of Truth that I always talk about in forums.

2008-08-20T12:29:00.002+08:00

Let's discourage excessive use of fossil fuel. Increase the price of petrol!!! Levy huge taxes on petrol!!! Here are pics I took when I cycled home after having met a friend this morning at about 9.30am. Look how close the bus is to the pavement. The cyclist could've been killed if the bus driver hadn't kept a proper look-out.

Get rid of motor vehicles on roads. Save the earth!!!!

2008-08-20T12:12:00.005+08:00

Yo folksies!!! I haven't blogged at all the whole of this year!!!

Here is a pic of the funeral in Bali. I've spoken so much about it without posting a single pic. Do you see what the guy in front is holding? And guess where I was standing, taking that pic!!! If that is not the courage of the beamishboy who slew the Jabberwock, I don't know what is.

Bali 2

2007-09-21T00:30:00.000+08:00

Here's the second instalment. The famous Kecak Dance and the Fire Dance. Unknown to most tourists, these dances are really religious dances. At the start of the dance, a priest has to sprinkle all participants with holy water.

This is the Kecak Dance. The figure dressed in finery is the Demon.

The pretty girls are good angels. One of them is a dewi which is a goddess but I'm not sure which one. They both look equally enchanting as are evidenced by the bodies strewn on the ground before them.

The good spirits or goddesses

The entire cast

The Fire Dance is an awesome dance. Again, it's religious and at the start of the dance, there is a long ceremony to purify the dancer, a young man on a toy horse. This may seem piffling to most tourists but the tradition of a toy horse used in rituals has a long history in the Malay Archipelago. A variant of this form of spiritual dance exists in neighbouring Malaysia and it's called "Kuda Kepang" or wooden horse. Dancers are reputed to go into a trance as they twirl around with the toy horse. In the Balinese version, the young man proceeds to kick the bonfire and ultimately extinguishes the flame completely. The last pic shows his charred feet. I asked him if there was any pain. He said he felt nothing. He was protected, so he claimed, by the Dewi. But it sure looked painful to me.

Bali

2007-09-20T17:36:00.000+08:00

I'll post the pics taken in my short holiday in Bali. I need time to select the better pics. I'll begin with the first set. Later, I'll show many other attractive pics including those taken in a cave temple, a deserted ancient ruins temple, the sea (with me riding the waves on the surfboard, my well-formed muscles gleaming in the sun) and the highlights will be a cremation procession with people dressed as demons and the actual cremation of a live corpse (I mean I took the cremation pics live) - this is a rare sight and National Geographic has offered to buy my pics for billions but I'll keep them private for now.

This is the restaurant we had dinner at the day after we arrived. It looks more like a temple than a restaurant but we got seats over the pond on the left and had a splendid view of the lotus pond and the temple which is a part of the restaurant. There were religious dances later that night.

This is an important temple in Bali. The procession of devotees headed by the priests distinguishable only by the type of sarongs they wear.

Here's where they all take a dip, infants too, for spiritual cleansing.

I'm off to Bali!!

2007-09-15T10:00:00.000+08:00

My life is a bit like a whirlwind. Without any notice, I was just asked this morning if I'd like to go to Bali for a few days. I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I've got to go. Will upload pics and stories when I'm back.

I LOVE DOGS TOO

2007-09-15T08:11:00.000+08:00

I've had many dogs in my time. More pics will be loaded.

MY GREATEST LOVE

2007-09-15T06:47:00.000+08:00

This is my greatest love:

And I don't mean the potpourri.

Yipeeee!!!! My first post

2007-09-15T00:28:00.000+08:00

Howdy!!! I'm so glad I've been given the green light to post my own blog. I'm only restricted by the following rules:-

No posting of photographs that will identify me
No identification of my name and where I live

While I'll abide by the above rules, I'm an avid photographer and there'll be lots of pics.