The Paradox of the Insulting Comment

A furore erupted over two MP's period (literally) joke at women. They were, accordingly, branded sexists and were demanded to apologize.



I find it amusing, considering that there are tons of jokes poking fun at males too (Think: Why was Moses lost for 40 years? Because he was too dumb to ask for directions). Okay, that's insulting. Insulting our intelligence. I don't see any men's rights groups shouting "sexism" to high heaven.



So, in a sense, our deputy prime minister Najib is right when he says they should not be taken seriously. Because seriously, it was just a pun. It might've been said maliciously, but then people (usually females) tell the Moses joke maliciously too.



Yes, I defend them here, and think this whole thing is a lot over nothing.



But the irony here is evident. Jokes (as long as they are humorous) insulting women are fine. They should not be taken seriously.



On the other hand, I don't think those two MPs could have survived long if they had poked fun at, say, the Prophet Muhammad. Or his wife(s).



No, not even if it was a joke.



They would've been sacked before you could even say "Barisan Nasional", and I don't need to explain why the hypocrisy is so evident here.



You can make a joke insulting women in general (or men, for that matter). But no, any joke "defaming" Islam or anything related to it is not tolerated in our blessed country. Not even if it was...a joke.



For that matter: A joke by a US senator poking fun at Malaysian women would have the entire government up in arms. Etc. etc.



Sometimes, our country doesn't make sense.



Or perhaps I'm just crazy.

Tales of the Abyss

Abyss is the first game I've played in the rather long Tales Of (Insert Name of Game here) series, kindly lent to me by a friend.



It's an RPG, and you can tell straight away what's the story going to be like. For the initiated, the basic formula goes like this:

• Normal guy gets thrown into the midst of a huge conspiracy.
• Normal guy- now the protagonist- sets off to save the world with a motley crew of characters.
• Protagonist makes some mistakes, and attempts to find redemption.
• Gets the girl, and saves the world.

I've pretty much outlined the basic plot of Abyss here, and from the face of it, it's nothing remarkable. Truly, the story isn't that good. And the characters are, way way, too RPGish.



Alas, I'm a little too harsh here. It has its moments, and it kept me entertained. At least, the battle system did. It's not the usual turn-based, hands off RPG fights here, it's a system with combos and various moves that require you to tap your buttons. A lot.

Graphics wise, it's nothing too remarkable, bordering on cel-shading (but it's not). Quite colourful, but often rather blocky. The cut-scenes tend to be very choppy as well; sometimes you have no idea what's going on.



Storywise...well, you know, it follows formula. Mostly, it's about the antagonists trying to free the world from the "Score", something that tells everything that will happen from the beginning to the end of the world. Their reason? Because they want free will.



Okay, despite the two-bit philosophizing, it still managed to keep me interested. It might be terribly unoriginal and not-too-great a game, but it was fun enough. At least, fun enough for me to want to complete it.



Oh yeah, the average time in completing this game runs to about 60 hours. Loooong. Me, I just skipped one or two boring sidequests and clocked in at 45 hours. Still quite long, since I finished FFX in around 30 hours.



Yay, another RPG completed. Heh.

Rurouni Kenshin- Reminiscence

Reminiscence, a prequel OVA (of sorts) to the Rurouni Kenshin series (a.k.a. Samurai X) happens to be one of the highest rated animes of all time. AnimeNfo has it ranked at the No. 1 spot (for quite some time now).



Is it a surprise then, that I find it to be one of the most overrated? Never mind the high ratings and the fawning reviews. I think Reminiscence has its fair share of flaws.



But first the good things about it, or why it is rated so highly: It's visually brilliant. Animation wise, it's exceptional and probably the most beautiful anime I have seen yet. Then again, it's easy to put so much concentration into this series since it's quite short.



Character development is a plus here too. I found that the main characters were developed quite well (considering the short time). The music is quite nice too. If not a little too dramatic, at times.



And what of the story? Plotwise, it has its moments. But overall, one can't help but feel how unoriginal (or perhaps, unremarkable) this whole thing is. I won't reveal the plot, but suffice to say it uses a lot of overused story elements.

This is not bad if you can make good use out of those cliched formulas. But the show in a sense struggles to do so- at times it succeeds, at others it just sinks into formula.



A few other notes: Lots of graphic violence here, certainly more graphic than the other Rurouni Kenshin series. As for swordfights, don't expect any elaborate ones (including all sorts of esoteric fight moves we've come to see from that other series). That said, it has its fair share of battles. I must say, it's not that bad. But it could've been better.



Oh yes, and there's a convoluted romance. Supposedly to make it more interesting. All it does is to make it a little more complicating, as one tries to figure out who loves who (and hates who).



And while Reminiscence is good, it is not that good.

Certainty, In Relation to Christianity- Part One: The Problem Stated

There are many interpretations for a single fact. E.g.:



You hear a loud bang.



It could be: a. Something big dropped. b. A gunshot c. Thunder d. A bomb exploding



Here, most would pick a. for the reason that it is most likely. That is often the case, in terms of probabilities. But that is merely an interpretation (i.e. saying that something big dropped as an explanation for a loud noise would not constitute objective validated truth). It might just as be that it was a gunshot, or a bomb exploding.

Take a verse from the Bible; say, from the one of the Pauline epistles:



So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.



This is from Romans 9:18. The Apostle Paul in turn, refers to Exodus 7:3 (as well as other similar verses) that refer to the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart. Interpretations vary at this point, most of them centering upon whether the "hardening" referred to here is caused by God or by Pharaoh himself (in which God let him harden his heart as interpreted; see Exodus 8:15,32).



A few issues are faced here: First with an apparent logical contradiction (who hardened whose heart?), and a theological problem (does this not go against free will?).



An exegetical analysis is not my purpose here; rather, it is to bring to attention the varied interpretations that a single verse (among others) can bring. The interpreters come from different hermeneutical backgrounds (e.g. liberal, conservative) as well as theological backgrounds (case in point: Calvinists and Arminians).



Thus we see different paradigms altogether (very often contradictory), each obviously claiming to have the right, better or preferred interpretation to any given passage from scripture.

A problem is presented here, inasmuch as to who is right in their interpretation. Surely, one side would have the right answer. The tricky part here is knowing who and what is right.



Certainty, in all regards, remains a little elusive.



Historically this has presented a major (if not the) major problem to Christianity and ecumenical unity in so far as each individual (and groups of) Christians would have their own opinion and interpretation of what they think the Bible says.



This has been a problem since the Early Church, as documented in the scriptures themselves: we have had the Gnostics and Judaizers. A little further in history, we have the Arians, Marcions and what not. The Church Fathers as well, revered as the beacons of orthodoxy they were, were not spared from dissent (including their own differing opinions on scriptural interpretation).



Many solutions have been given: Roman Catholicism offers uniformity, supposedly an evidence that they are the one true unchanging church. Yet such uniformity is questionable, as the Catholic body of doctrine was very much changing throughout the years, with novel doctrines added continuously.



Apparently, the faith that was "once for all" delivered to the saints hasn't been kept that properly.



The scriptures offer no such guarantee of complete certainty. At least, not anymore than it is guaranteed that a Christian would be absolutely spared from evil and suffering. A question is asked here: Why would God allow such a thing to his precious Church?



This in essence is a rephrasing of the problem of evil, in which I do not intend to tackle in depth here. A common theme runs through (most) theodicies offered: That is, God has a higher benevolent purpose in allowing such. And one would suppose that answer is applicable to such a question.



There are other approaches at the other end. One example would be the Emergent Conversation, with (some would say) postmodernism as its guiding framework. A better way to state it is that it "has in mind" postmodernism when it approaches questions of truth and certainty.



What would be their response to the problem of certainty (or uncertainty, to frame it in other words)? The reality of such a fact is embraced, and accepted, which is commendable (but to qualify such by adding: to a certain extent). Thus, theology as such becomes not rather a stagnant, unchangeable, unquestionable body of ideas. Rather, it is "organic", changing (depending upon the context of the individual).



As such, absolutism is regarded as undesirable, and an "inclusive" approach to truth is held. Hence, a more practical approach to Church is followed, where claims to absolute truth in the sense of classic expositional, exegetical preaching and teaching has lesser salience, if any at all.



I have so far sketched the problem, and outlined a few what I consider improper answers (this is not to say that they are totally undesirable; on the contrary, there is much that we may learn and adopt from the differing perspectives).



In the next part I hope to lay out what I think to be a possible solution, that avoids the forced "certainty" of Catholicism and the embrace of the reality of uncertainty (not necessarily bad) which leads to a diminished regard of exegesis and exposition in the context of church worship (bad).



Feel free to comment or criticize on where I have gone wrong and misrepresented or missed out some things.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Much has been made about the movie's confusing plot. Truth be told, it's pretty simple. You just have to keep in mind who is on whose side, what they are actually after at the moment, and who is actually...who. Sides get switched a lot of times here. Yeah. Confusing.



But Pirates 3 doesn't lack in any department (in regards to the last two movies), and continues upon nicely upon the formula followed by the first two movies. In this respect, if you enjoyed Pirates 1 & 2, you'll certainly love this installment.



As always, we have swordfights, ships, and sappy romance(s). Which is why Pirates is an unexceptional movie. Of course, that can't be said of it in the visual effects department, which is exhilarating enough.



Then again, the movies has always been about eye candy and, of course, Jack Sparrow. It's rather long too. So expect lots of draggy scenes. Which is unnecessary. Pirates has always been only about the action and the occasional one liner.



Oh yes, the ending harbors no cliffhangers. Although it is shown that they embark for a new adventure, just wait a little through the ending credits and you'll see some sense of closure. At least, I hope so. Another installment would be entertaining, but a trilogy is good enough, and another movie might be a little tiring.



File this under "entertaining". Expect no more, no less.





The Thoughtful Critic: C



The Relaxed Moviegoer: B+