Speciesism is the pillar that holds the argument of the animal rights’ groups. Speciesism is an act of discriminating a living form based on its species. The representative used racism and sexism as a parallel example to help the audience better grasp this concept of speciesism. From the perspective of the animal rights’ activist, just like racism and sexism, discrimination against an organism based on its species is wrong. They argued, who rendered humans the rights to view animals as inferior beings that can be USED for research in ways which humans wouldn’t be used? Apparently, this is speciesism, discriminating against animals as they are viewed as the inferior organism. At first glance, it seemed almost noble. I mean, wow, here is a group that has picked up the discriminatory act of humans against animals. They proposed that the act of speciesism has become so naturalised (ingrained in the society over centuries, that it has become a natural habit), as was racism and sexism at some point in time, that people have yet to see why it’s wrong.

When I first heard this, I thought to myself, “Oh my, could this be true? Have I been practising an unjust discrimination all these years but just never saw it?” But the more thought I gave it, the more I realised how intangible this concept was. If speciesism was a concept rooted in truth, it will first and foremost, be applicable (i.e you can actually practise not being a speciest) and secondly, you should be able to apply it without conditions. For example, you can’t stand against racism but say that it cannot be applied to all races, that to some races, racism would still have to apply. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? It’s like saying, ‘Hey, racism is discriminatory! It is wrong! We should not do it….. Except if it is against (let’s just say for argument’s sake) Indians, then you can practise racism’. You see that is the problem with speciesism. To truly stand against speciesism, means to not discriminate any living thing based on its species. After all, the argument WAS who are we to determine humans are the superior being. But to truly practise non-speciesism, one would have to stop eating, because we wouldn’t eat human meat, now would we? So, what gave humans the rights to feed on animal and plants? Who decided that these organisms are the ‘inferior’ being that we can feed on? Isn’t it discriminatory to not eat human meat, and value human life and yet to not value animals’ and plants’ life with equal consideration?

I am sure, many are going, ‘But that’s a different thing!’. How so? For speciesism to be a truly tangible argument, one should be able to apply non-speciesism effectively but as you can see, practising non-speciesism DIRECTLY means non-survival. I guess one can, out of his ‘nobility’ of being ‘non-discriminatory’ choose to die than to feed on plants and animals. Hmm, yeah right?

You see the confusion we end up with. Our sense of justice and righteousness must lead humanity to its fullest potential and purpose. If our sense of justice and righteousness leads to death instead of elevating humanity, then there is something very distorted about that sense of justice and righteousness.

When you put God into the picture, it’s almost like how a person with short-sightedness found his/her pair of spectacles. Everything becomes clearer. With God in the picture, we know that humans were created in the likeness and image of God himself. We were given His nature. Our inquisitiveness, intelligence, desire for Love and Truth, our fulfilment as a community, our Reason, our able to execute Will, all these goods things point to the likeness of God, imparted to us by His grace. Humans were given dominion over the creatures of the earth. Do you realise how even this points our being created in the likeness of God? Humans were given dominion over the creatures of the earth as God has dominion over all things on heaven and earth. We were entrusted to lead and treat the creatures of earth with utmost care, compassion and justice while enabling them to achieve their fullest potential and use but these cannot mean that the creatures of the earth will attain equality with humanity which rules over them. The very same way, God is God, who leads and treats us humans with utmost care, compassion and justice while always guiding us to achieve our fullest potential as His ultimate creation but these cannot mean that we will attain equality with God, that we shall become God ourselves. This cannot mean, that now, we shall decide what the order of creatures shall be, we shall decide (devoid of God’s Truth) what wrong and right is, that we shall be the ‘Lords’ and no God shall govern us, that no God shall impose His Truth or Justice on us. That is what idolatry really is.

I see how messed up we become when we take God out of the equation. I see how human wisdom without divine guidance leads to a dead end, to death ultimately. But despite all this, I cannot make you believe in God. I cannot convince you how incomplete, misguided and lost we become when we kick God out of the picture. I can only pray that you will be open to see these things, and that when you do, I pray that you will find the courage and humility to admit that there is indeed a God. And not a God, who Lord it over us, taking us against our will, against our happiness but a Lord who fulfils us, a Lord who gives of Himself so completely, so that we may one day find ourselves. A Lord who lives, a Lord who is patient in waiting for His child to return to Him, a Lord who will never give up us, even when all around us do.

There was an interesting video in the web recently that went viral (14 million hits on youtube, i mind you!!). It was a video of a dashing young rapper with great musical talent spitting out rhymes about the sins of religion. The video attracted the attention and likes of many, especially the young. The number of shares of this video on Facebook was phenomenal. This young man was preaching that Jesus came to abolish religion and it was mostly Christians who shared the video on their Facebook page. I found it to be rather perplexing that the video appealed most to Christians, who themselves belong to a religion, than it did to atheists or free-thinkers.

Well, apparently, the young man was very spot-on his points, and though many were unsure of what their stand was on religion, they agreed with what he was arguing about.

The young rapper started his video with questions. Lots of them. I am not quite sure if he provided much accurate answers but he was very effective in asking questions that rhymed and were interesting to listen to. However, I came to learn once again, that just because it sounds good, doesn’t mean it is true. It is absolutely important that as learned, educated Christians, we learn to question inspirations and discern the messages that is being sent to us, regardless of the language and the format it comes in.

Let me begin by saying I do not blame this young man for what he believes in. He was probably taught to interpret the Bible subjectively without the proper guidance from someone with about 2000 years worth of Scriptural knowledge. He may not have had the opportunity to master discernment in order to discern every inspiration that he receives. Not everyone is blessed with the opportunity to receive such education and formation.

Now, the first question this young man asked was, “What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?”

Of course, before one can even think of the answer to that question, he pounces once again with another question. “What if I told you voting Republican wasn’t his mission?”

Catchy, eh? The majority of us will probably agree to the second sentence, and naturally then concede that he was probably right about his first claim as well.

After some thought, the answer to his very first question appears direct and simple.

Jesus did not, never did come to abolish religion. There are plenty of scriptural evidences to support this. Jesus was born into the Jewish religion. Jesus, God in flesh, chose to be presented to the Jewish temple, according to Jewish customs, after His birth. Jesus, at the age of 12, followed his parents to their annual ‘religious’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In Matt 5:17, Jesus says boldly, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (NIV). When the Pharisees and the scribes questioned Jesus regarding the Jewish practice of keep the Sabbath holy, Jesus response was not to negate or nullify the practise of Sabbath but to restore the practice to its correct disposition. He called on the Pharisees to remember the true nature of the practice, that is to live Sabbath for praise and gratitude towards God, with Christ as the centrepiece.

Jesus came to fulfil the true calling of a religion, that is to know God, to love God and to serve God with all our heart, our mind, our soul and our strength. If abolishing religion was Jesus’ aim, then He would have stood against all the Jewish religious practices of the time. But that is not what Christ did. He wasn’t against the religious practices. He was against distorted religious practices that instead of being directed to God’s glorification, was directed towards self-glorification. The Pharisees were so obsessed with keeping the Laws, so that they may appear worthy before God and those around them. The religious practices ended up putting the focus on self. These religious practices, are suppose to edify us and redirect our focus and thoughts back to God, so that God becomes the central theme of our lives, and rituals such as the Passover and keeping the Sabbath holy are there so that making Christ the central theme of our lives becomes an innate habit. The problem was not with religion or religious practices but was with a self-directed religion and religious practice.

The young man, then goes on to say that,

“If religion is so big, why has it started so many wars?
Why does it build huge churches but fails to feed the poor?
Tell single moms God doesn’t love them, because they have ever had a divorce.”

Does religion call people to go on war against each other? I don’t think i’ve heard of many religions that call on their followers to wage war against another human being. Then, why were there wars in the name of religion? Is it not obvious that these wars were self-seeking in nature but hid behind the banners of religion? Didn’t as many people oppose war because they had a sound religious understanding as did those who wanted to wage war in the name of religion? Religion isn’t bad. It is the misuse of religion for self-seeking purposes that is bad.

Why does it build huge churches but fails to feed the poor?

Ever wondered why Christ was so ticked off when He saw business going on in temple grounds? Why did Christ drive out the businesses that were taking place in temple grounds. Why did he say to them, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

If a church is just a building that can be anything, anywhere, however; if the externalities of church are of no value, then why was Jesus so cheesed off by those selling at the temple? After all, prayers and teaching were still taking place in the temple. What caused Jesus to become irate and chase the people out?

It is because Jesus himself preached the holiness of the physical temple. Because Jesus himself taught that the externalities are a reflection of the internalities. And such, there is substantial investment that goes into the building of a church, because it is a reflection of God’s presence in the world. The Church, is a place where God truly comes to be present in times of worship. During Mass, for the Catholics, the bread is truly transformed into the flesh of Christ, meaning the church is a place where Christ’s Real Presence comes to be. The physical church is a reflection of God’s presence on earth. How then, can a church be left to look like a shack or an empty building with no reflection of God’s glory and beauty?

After all, all riches come from God (when earned righteously). Do you not think that the same God would provide for the building of the church just as He would provide for the feeding of the poor? It is when we become self-directed/self-centred that we begin to think that feeding the poor supersedes the glorification of God. And although externally this may seem right, it is not. Why? Because then, we still put the focus on ourselves, on our Doing, on our might. What can I DO for the poor? Instead of focusing on BEing with God, and allowing Him to work through us, we put the focus on ourselves. Good actions without spiritual directions are empty activism and that is not what God is calling Christians to be.

Of course, God is not saying, ignore the poor. There is no way one can put all the focus on God, and consciously end up neglecting the poor, the marginalised neighbours around. If that happens, one probably has an impaired and distorted relationship with God. God calls us to relationship with Him, so that we can learn to have a relationship with those around us, and treat those around us in accordance to the value bestowed on them. It is not so much about having a good relationship with others, so that we can have a good relationship with God. On the other hand, the contrary is more true.

The Catholic Church very well known for her beautiful, huge churches is also the largest charitable organisation in the WORLD (all contributions collectively) (Reference: http://pseudo01.hddn.com/vod/cchvideo.catholicscomehom2/pdf/Epic_proof.pdf).

The Church has built numerous hospitals, orphanages, schools and colleges always known for quality. How then can one claim that the Church has built huge churches but failed to feed the poor?

This young rapper said,

“See, the problem with religion is it never gets to the core

It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores”

Did Christ come and say that there will be no longer rules governing people? Did He say that there will be no expectations from those who profess their belief in Him? What exactly are chores? Chores are everyday tasks that may sometimes be unpleasant and yet is necessary.

Religion is not a long list of chores, but it definitely includes expectations. Christ did many times preach on what is expected of Christians, his followers.

That we are to forgive infinitely,

that we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves,

that we are to go, sell everything we have, give it to the poor, and follow Him,

that we are to cut our hands or legs off if it stands in our way to the kingdom of heaven,

that we are to repent of our sins and return to God’s love,

that what God has bound we are not to divide,

that we are to die for our family and friends,

that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Christ did give us a long list of ‘chores’, for the lack of a better word, to follow. How do we respond to that?

If we are looking for a ‘religion’ with no restriction, where everything goes, where everyone can do whatever they want to do, where everyone can be whatever they want to be and not face consequences for those choices, I am sorry to tell you that Christianity is not what you are looking for.

If you think Christ came to promote a lifestyle of inconsequential freedom, then you have been mislead. True freedom comes with ‘abiding’ or ‘attuning’ yourself to God’s will. The consequence of inconsequential freedom is unfulfillment and degradation of the human understanding of self-value.

I can go on and respond to everything that the young rapper said. However, that would mean that this post will be too long (much longer than it already is) and fail to get the message across.

The point at the end of the day, is to listen to messages and carefully and critically examine them using our sound reasoning (which were formed by many years of RELIGIOUS education) complemented with the teachings of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, before accepting them to be true and propagating them. It is about being aware that a message that relays a convenient faith does not necessarily hold truth, and a message that relays an inconvenient faith is not necessarily false.

In life, we are to seek what is Right, what is Truth and not seek to be Right, or to be True.

Only then, will we be able to follow the directions of Truth, which at the end of the day, is not a thing to know but a Person.

2011 has been a monumental year. To think again, 2009 to 2011 has been phenomenal and is definitely a year of exponential growth. I feel like I have changed 360°. I’ve learnt so much about so many things, that I can never share them all because there’s just too many and not all may be relevant to everyone. Never has my mind and thoughts been so clear, so grounded, so sure. Sure not because I know what is coming, but sure because I know it is in the hand of God, who bring good out of all that happens.

2011 has been a year of learning to trust, to let go, to love, and to fall.

It’s been a year of never ending blessing. A year of dependency on God, a year of letting go of insecurities. It's the year that I finally learned to let fear be subordinated to Love and not vice versa.

It’s the year that this meagre girl with no extraordinary background traversed to 5 countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Australia and New Zealand).

It’s the year that God taught me to trust him in a way I never imagined I could. It’s a year where my understanding and knowledge of God grew beyond anything I could anticipate.

A year of perfection in all its imperfection.

Couldn’t have asked for more, but at the same time, I know tomorrow holds so much more, and as usual, something beyond my imagination, for which i look forward to.

Lord, 2012 is entirely in your hands too. :)

One could love someone, and yet the desire to lust after that person, or another is still there.

Marriages built on love, break because of affairs that begin in lust. Sometimes, we want love but at the same time, we want to keep lust at the side.

I, once asked my friend, what was the difference between lust and passion. And he didn’t know.

I guess that might explain (a little) why lust is the choice. Perhaps most of us do not even really know what lust is and its nature.

Lust can attract even the kindest of soul.

I know that despite having understood the nature of lust, the consequences, the ugliness, the sinfulness, it can still appear to be rather attractive even to me. And it is for this very fact, I wanted to examine it more closely. This sinful nature, which despite it ugliness, yet appears attractive.

What is it about lust that is so attractive, that many of us either indulge in it some way, or are trapped in it, enchained by an addiction to it, destroyed by it, or some of us are so engulfed by it that has become a second nature to us?

When we hear the word ‘Lust’, some of us may think of sexual urge. I know that I did. I used to think that sexual urge equalled to lust. Here’s the big news.

Sexual urge is NOT lust.

Sexual urge is a naturally present desire, element whose end will be union of two flesh to become one. Sexual urge is a gift that has a unitive and procreative end. Without sexual urge, the union of two persons to become one, and to give of themselves wholly and fully to the other cannot be possible. Procreation will not be possible. So, let’s remember this. Sexual urge is NOT lust, it is not sinful. It is a gift that has a greater end in the mind.

But just like any other gift we have, it can be used for good, for its rightful purpose or it can be used for bad, for wrong purposes. What we do with sexual urge determines the final outcome.

Lust is an outcome of sexual urge that is not mastered according to human will, reason and dignity. Lust is when sexual urge is misused or is treated like an animal instinct (which it is not since it has been given to humans).

Lust is basically any act (mental, physical, emotional) in which a human person, or his body parts are used merely as an object for gratification. Lust is using someone as a means to an end, in most cases, the end is pleasure. Lust is when sexual urge is misused out of its natural context for selfish indulgences.

Love is when the person is the end, and sex is a means used to achieve union with that person as the end. Sex is an expression of love, in which two individuals committed to each other, bound by marriage, choose to give of themselves to each other wholly, and are open to bearing fruit through that union in the form of children.

Despite knowing all this, despite understanding the selfish, destructive nature of lust, something about it attracts even me and that is why I decided to analyse it, to break it down.

As I thought about it, I recognised a light pattern.

I know that the first time I ever watched porn (yes, I’ve watched porn. Wished I didn’t but I did.), it was partially out of curiosity to know the nature of the content of this genre of video that everyone was talking about, but I also realised it was after a heart-break, a painful rejection that I was most curious about porn. That itself pointed me to a better understanding on lust.

Lust becomes attractive when Love seems too far away, unattainable or too difficult. When Love seemed unfair or painful, Lust becomes an attractive option. Lust had the capability to temporarily numb the pain that Love can cause. That is because Lust is devoid of Love.

Lust was capable of numbing the pain caused by Love because Lust desecrates Love, strips it down of its original purity and dignity, and humiliates it.

Have you ever experienced a moment when someone hurts you, and you were so filled with pain and anger that you wanted to inflict pain back on the person? That’s what Lust does to Love.

When I felt that Love was being unfair to me, and caused me incessant hurts, Lust became an attractive option for revenge on Love. Since no matter how hard I tried to love right, Love has found me unworthy of itself, I wanted to hurt Love by choosing Lust, it’s enemy, it’s total opposite. Lust is everything Love fights against. What better way to hurt Love than through Lust?

One resorts to Lust when one gives up on Love. One resorts to Lust when Love poses too much risk, requires too much effort, too much giving of self. One resorts to Lust when we are convinced that self-centredness is a justifiable self-preservation method.

Lust is the easier, safer option. It revolves more around my satisfaction. In Lust, I might not even need the other person, that’s where masturbation becomes an option. With Lust, self-sufficiency is possible. It gives one the delusion of safety from pains and hurts.

What we don’t realise is that Lust is the counterfeit that can only offer temporary gratification and distraction from our hearts deepest desires, but it can never fulfil it. Lust is what we settle for when we’re deceived into thinking that we are not worthy of Love. But at the end of the day, the heart’s deepest desire will always be Love. Always. Because we were created by Love, in Love and for Love. And nothing else can give us the fulfilment we’re looking for, than Love.

It was these realisations and God’s abundant grace that gives me the determination to always, always, always try to choose Love over Lust in all situations, regardless of how tempting the situation may be.

Love will always be the first, and only true love. Lust can only be the imperfect compromise, the counterfeit.

Lord, show us the way back to Love, when Lust blinds us. Amen.