The entire family (save my youngest sister) is leaving for Bangkok on the first day of the Chinese New Year, because Joyce has to attend to urgent work matters there on Tuesday and we figured that we might as well bring the whole family along.

However, the logistics of packing the bags for two kids — even for a short trip like this — has turned out to be quite a challenge.  There’s clothes, diapers, baby food, snacks, milk powder, entertainment (ie. toys and videos), bottles, utensils, baby wipes, and medicines to take care of.  (Not sure if I’ve missed out anything — hope not !)

A friend reading my status on Facebook helpfully suggested that I should "just pack the pharmacy, supermarket and departmental store along … should cover everything they need".

It feels almost like mobilising for war.  Except that the Full Battle Order seemed a whole lot easier to pack.

After I had parked my car at my in-laws HDB estate yesterday a fairly youngish Malay couple with a baby in a pram approached me and asked to borrow (or more correctly give them) about ten dollars so that they could urgently take their child by taxi to Kendang Kerbau hospital.  As I had almost nothing left in my wallet I asked them to wait for my brother-in-law, who was coming to help me carry some stuff from the car.

"Oh, sorry, I thought you’re Malay".  The man sounded very apologetic, almost as if he wanted to withdraw his request.

His remark caught me by surprise and I could only mumble a "no I’m not (Malay)" in reply.

Reflecting on the incident, I think it is somewhat commendable that a Malay-Muslim is able (or should be able) to expect help from another stranger from his community — no questions asked — in such circumstances.  (And maybe, if the couple had thought that they could never squeeze a dollar of help out of a Chinese, than that reflects poorly on the Chinese generally).  I wonder if Chinese / Chinese Christians can expect the same from their community ? 

On my part, I don’t think approaching a stranger for help would have been one of the first options on my mind.

Interestingly the person most excited about Josh’s birthday was not Joyce or me, or grandma, but Jed.  Talking to grandma in the morning he cooked up a story of the day’s schedule beginning with school, followed by his lunch and nap then a dinner birthday party for Josh.  Which prompted my mother to call Joyce to find out if the family would indeed be eating out for dinner.

We had not made any such plan, but so that Jed would not be disappointed we went out for ice cream after dinner.

Josh turns one today.  It is hard to believe that a little more than a year ago, we were anxiously waiting for our second little bundle to pop.  Would it be Christmas ?  New Year ?  Chinese New Year ?

He finally arrived on 14 January, one year ago.

One year later, he is beginning to master his baby steps, I think about a month or a month-and-half faster than his older brother.  I suppose he has figured out that to get hold of any of the toys at home (before Jed), he would have to learn how to walk over and snatch it for himself.

On (or about) Thursday 8 January an errant Israeli motar shell hit a UN school in Gaza, killing several school children.  This prompted an AFP report on "257 Palestinian children killed in Gaza" (which title, I would point out, when read with the article’s first paragraph confusingly suggests that the attack on the UN school caused 257 casualties), exerpts (first four paragraphs) as follows :

Tiny bodies lying side by side wrapped in white burial shrouds. The cherubic face of a dead preschooler sticking up from the rubble of her home. A man cradling a wounded boy in a chaotic emergency room after Israel shelled a U.N. school.

Children, who make up more than half of crowded Gaza’s 1.4 million people, are the most defenseless victims of the war between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli army has unleashed unprecedented force in its campaign against Hamas militants, who have been taking cover among civilians.

A photo of 4-year-old Kaukab Al Dayah, just her bloodied head sticking out from the rubble of her home, covered many front pages in the Arab world Wednesday. "This is Israel," read the headline in the Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. The preschooler was killed early Tuesday when an F-16 attacked her family’s four-story home in Gaza City. Four adults also died.

As many as 257 children have been killed and 1,080 wounded — about a third of the total casualties since Dec. 27, according to U.N. figures released Thursday.

Not unexpectedly, and not unreasonably as well, the attack provoked global outrage.

Now suppose the motar shell had hit a pet shop and 257 hamsters or 257 rabbits died.  Or that it hit a florist and 257 roses perished.  Would there be the same outpouring of anger or grief ?

I ask this not to trivialise the deaths of the Palestinian children,  but to question why human life is regarded as more precious than animal or plant life.  What is the basis for this ? 

Numerous atheists today believe that a random mixture of chemicals got really lucky and that humans evolved as a result.  That essentially, we are no different from animals or plants but for the chemical makeup.  If so, why do we mourn the passing of human life ?  Why do we express outrage when innocent people are killed ?  Why do we not feel the same outrage when animals or plants are killed ?  Why do we feel anger or a sense of loss at all, if all there is to life is a short period of heightened consciousness followed by decomposition of the life form into its chemical constituents ?

I believe that much as we would like to deny the existence of God, or a divinely-inspired moral order, all humans as created beings have a moral compass hardwired into our being.  Therefore except maybe for the most depraved of us, there is a core set of moral standards which we subconciously adhere to, one of which is the sacredness of human life.  In Genesis 9 : 5 - 6, God (re)institutes this moral order when He instructs Noah -

"And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".

Two truths jump out from this simple passage.  The first is that humans were created to bear the imprint of God — "in the image of God, has God made man".  The second is that human life is not to be trivialised, that God will demand from every person an account for how he has treated his fellow man.  Taken together, this means that every person, male or female, young or old, able-bodied or handicapped, economically productive or not, straight or gay, "red and yellow black and white", is precious in the sight of God.

I suppose there are many who take sides in or protest against the conflict for reasons such as identification with the Jewish or Palestinian cause, or ethnic or religious affiliation, or political advancement.

However, for Christians, the life of every Palestinian child, and of every other Palestinian, as well as of every Israeli, matters because human life is precious in the sight of God.  And when we plead or pray for peace, restriant or justice in this conflict, it should also be because we grieve at how there has so little respect for the sacredness of God-given life.

Here I would deviate to add that this Biblical view on the sacredness of God-given life must, in conjunction with whatever other guidance God has provided in the Bible, inform our views on controversial matters such as the artificial conception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and other like issues.  I think it would be presumptuous of Christians to pretend that the Bible has clear answers to all these new (or maybe not-so-new) scientific developments; it does not.  In the absence of clear scriptural approval (or sometimes disapproval) I suppose a safe position to take would be to object to everything, but I don’t think this is necessarily correct.  Rather, the Christian who supports artificial conception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and other like issues in any general or particular circumstances must do so with reverential awe for the sacredness of God-given life, sincerely believing with good reason that what he supports does not (or does not without good reason) detract from the fundamental principle that every life (no matter how "embryonic") is precious in the sight of God, and with the apprehension that God will call him to account for the impact of his views on the life of his fellow man.

In Shrek 2, Puss in Boots was introduced as an orge-assassion with a supercute, sympathy-inducing, wide-eyed look as his ultimate weapon.

Which incidentally happens to be Josh’s secret weapon as well.

Yesterday’s Straits Times carried an article by John Tierney from the New York Times, on how religion might lead to greater self-control ("Pray, lead us not into temptation").

While I would argue that self-control / self-discipline is a fruit of the Spirit (ie. the outworking of God in Christian life, see Galatians 5 : 22), the article nonetheless makes the interesting point that religion results in greater self-control.

"As early as the 1920s, researchers found that students who spent more time in Sunday school did better at laboratory tests measuring their self-discipline.  Subsequent studies showed that religiously devout children were reated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers, and that religiosity repatedly correlated with higher self-control among adults.  Devout people were found to be more likely than others to wear seat belts, go to the dentist and take vitamins."

Though the article also, interestingly, draws a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiousity, which from a Christian perspective may be read to mean that transformation comes from a genuine faith in God, and not mere observation of outward rituals (or works).

"Does this mean that non-believers … should start going to church ?  Even if you don’t believe in a supernatural god, you could try improving your self-control by at least going along with the rituals of organised religion. 

But that probably wouldn’t work eitiher … because personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress people or make social connections.  The intrinsically religious people have highser self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not."

The article finally makes the interesting suggestion that agnostics and atheists could try to attain greater self-control by holding certain personal values sacred even if they are non-religious.

"So what’s a heathen to do in 2009 ?   … try replicating some of the religious mechanisms that seem to improve self-control, like private meditation or public involvement with an organisation that has strong ideals.  Religious people … are self-controlled but simply because they fear God’s wrath, but because they have absorbed the ideals of their religion into their own system of values, and have thereby given their personal goals an aura of sacredness.  … non-believers [ could ] try a secular version of that strategy. … ‘You can spend time thinking about what values are sacred to you and making New Year resolutions that are consistent with them’."

The suggestion is appealing, and one blogger in fact wrote that

"This article makes a distinction between intrinsically religious and extrinsically religious. So religions works only if you truly believe, or as this study found have internalised the ideals and values of the religion. Non-believers can also develop their own "personal religion" with their own values and ideals, but religion comes "prefabricated" as a packaged deal. Which is what I have always believed. Religion serves a purpose and most people would benefit from that purpose. But some people don’t benefit from religion and are happier crafting their own set of values and ideals and the rationale for those ideals."

However, I’m personally not certain of how much more self-discipline a person, who is not by nature self-disciplined, can instil in his life without the supernatural outworking of God.

That aside, I’m also quite curious to know what use there is to being self-disciplined if the values in relation to which the discipline is exercised are questionable.  If one of my "sacred" values is to commit genocide, or to be sexually indulgent, is discipline in relation to my terrorist training, or Kegels exercises, of any good ?  The values in the Bible (eg. "love your neighbour"), on the other hand, don’t pose the same problems.

On the second day of the new year I accidentally stubbed my last toe into the corner of the cot.  At first it seemed like just any other small accident which bruise would fade in a couple of hours but this time to opposite happened — the toe swelled and turned a nasty blue-black.  It hurt pretty badly too so for I while I asked if I had twisted or broken my last toe.

Anyway, the happy news is that after limping around the whole of today the toe seems to have recovered.  It doesn’t hurt as much and I’m walking with a normal gait. 

Well, either the toe is recovering, or it starting to turn gangrenous (yucks, probably not).