Thai Mysteries by Kathleen

Bangkok was a fabulous city, I miss it already, Kanchanaburi is small and there doesn't seem to be much happening. It looks like it has potential and there is a national park nearby, but I enjoyed all that the city had to offer.

Thailand is beautiful and the people are nice, but culturally it is rather inaccessible, but I think that the Thai like it that way. “Welcome welcome, enjoy your stay remember to leave. Thank you.” They seem mostly numbed by the hordes of mindless tourists that crowd through and at this point seem willing to allow people to just be stupid foreigners without trying to explain culture or any other subtlety.

“Just give us the bhat and it will be all good thank you have nice time.” They seem intensely private and the only glimpses I have seen of the inner workings of the people who know this land have been stolen ones.

In Bangkok a family early in the morning, the woman mixing noodle dough, the father taking their child to school while the mother in law cleans up; a tuk tuk driver buying a string of jasmine flowers to hang in front of the king’s portrait he has on his dashboard, he bows his head and makes a silent prayer at a red light. But as soon as they see you its all show "Epcot Thailand" I will call it, after the booths in Disney Land.

To be fair this is a great place to hide from the world, with no effort at all you can become unseen, hidden behind farang( foreigner) status the Thai mostly take your presence for granted. It’s not like in India where you become a spectacle. The Thai also seem uninterested in passing many moral judgments on you, you are a dumb outsider as long as you don't disrespect the king or the Buddha or dress like a streetwalker then “sure, fine”. India tries to change you, the looks you get are of disapproval, not here, mostly smiles that range from friendly to bored.

I wish I knew a little Thai, as I am sure this opens many doors and I wish I knew bit more about the history of this land. Without these tools, I earn the farang status. Though in my defense, I did try and learn something, I know a little bit it of the history and culture, mostly because of my years of studying Chinese, but back home it was near impossible to find a decent book on this kingdom of elephants even in the Umass library.

Maybe time will show more of this land than beautiful green and good prices on sarongs. Until then, I will take advantage of being unseen and relax.

Goodbye Bangkok

We left Bangkok this morning headed for Kanchanaburi, the home of the famous Bridge over the river Kwai. It is terribly anticlimactic, I'm not sure what I expected, but this is not it. After looking at it and taking the token picture we went to the WWII museum next door which was not in any way worth the entrance fee. (it reminded Kathleen of one of those "Worlds largest ______" spots).

It had an antique train engine that was used by the Japanese in the entrance way. I was afraid of putting too much weight on it and falling through the side it was so rusted over. Then there was a rail car prison cell, with the caption "rail cars like this were used as prison cells for POW's and workers who were working on the rail tracks.” There was a life sized wooden manikin of a very unhappy looking prisoner.

After that was a land rover and a motorcycle "used for short distance travel by Japanese officers". And finally we walked through a corridor of the most random and arbitrary stuffs from the WWII period, like rows and rows of coins, jugs, etc. At the end there was a guy carving soap, that I thought was pretty awesome. But what was totally worth the 80 Bhat (the Thai currency) to get in was the iguana cooling off in the mid day heat by the entrance. It let me touch it (yay!).

This town is really quiet, in the best way possible. Not a lot of obnoxious tourists or traffic. We have a really nice room in a guest house not far from the main drag, but far enough that on the off chance things do get loud we won’t hear much of it.

The countryside is so green, more so than anywhere I have ever been before. Must be the sun, the plants must love it. Speaking of which, apparently the longest solar eclipse on record was a few days ago, and the next comparable one will be in 3045 or something far-far away like that. Just a fun fact I learned from a foreigner turned local.

Why Does God Allow Tragedy?

One of the questions people ask whenever there is a terrible tragedy such as this weeks Haitian earthquake is "Why would a good God allow bad things to happen?"   The argument that one often hears from skeptics at a time like this goes something like this, "God cannot be both good and all-powerful."

If he is all powerful and allows evil then he is not good but if he is good and allows evil then he must be powerless to stop it.  Since there is evil in the world it must mean that he is either all powerful and evil or good but not all powerful but he cannot be both." 

It is the question that has confounded philosophers and scholars for generations.   "How can a good God allow evil and tragedy in this world?"  Many are asking today as they see the unbelievable misery and suffering in Haiti, "Where was God in this tragedy?"

The answers are not easy, but I do think it is helpful for us to remind ourselves of a few important truths whenever people are asking the question.

1.  First of all, we should all remember that Christianity teaches that we are all limited in our understanding and that there is no way that any one of us can have a clear picture of reality on this side of eternity.  What we see in this life as human tragedy has to be measured against the full scope of eternity.

Paul the apostle pointed out that "...we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

It is easy for us to make broad assumptions about what we see as God's powerlessness in evil and suffering but none of us truly see things as they are from the perspective of eternity.   C.S. Lewis has said that he believes the first thing we will all say in heaven are the words, "Ah hah!" 

Only God sees true reality.  The rest of us here only sees a part of that reality and because of our weakness and limited understanding none of us can fully know what God knows from His perspective.

Evil and suffering in this world is not evidence that God does not exist nor is it evidence that God is evil or merely good but not omnipotent.   This is not a complete argument regarding the character of God for one simple reason:  Just because you and I cannot see a good reason for what happens in the world does not mean that God is not in control and does not have reasons.  Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean there is no explanation.  Our reality is not the only reality and it is certainly not the complete reality.

For a person to say "Because I can't understand the reason that God allows suffering in the world it must mean that there are no reasons" is an amazingly presumptuous and self serving statement.  When you think about it, it takes a tremendous leap of faith to believe in yourself in this way.  It is like saying "I don't really think that can be real because I don't see or understand the reality of it."

We do not employ this kind of logic to other parts of life.  We may not know how electricity works and yet that doesn't mean we don't believe it's real.  We may not see the tiny insect that is biting us but that doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

Just because we don't understand fully and see clearly the purposes of God in human tragedy does not mean they do not exist.  So as Christians we have to first of all understand that God's ways are not like our ways and that He is the only one who has the complete, eternal perspective on this life (Isaiah 55:8). 

2.  The very fact that we know something is evil and tragic is evidence that there is a loving and just God in the universe.   When you think of the tragedy in Haiti keep in mind that you and I would not even know that this was tragic unless we first knew that there was such a thing as tragedy.   There is something within our spirit that cries out at the injustice of suffering.  What is that?  It certainly is not the result of evolutionary impulse.

Darwinian Evolution teaches that the human species is inscripted by millions of years of "survival of the fittest" type impulses.  If that is true then wouldn't the human species cry out in delight that thousands of potentially competitive predators and foragers have been eliminated?  And yet that is not what we feel.  We feel a sense of horror and sadness welling up from our inmost being.  The only logical explanation for this impulse is that it was put there by a loving and just creator who teaches us through our very senses that our hearts cry out for His mercy and love.

Have you ever noticed that when tragedies like this occur it is the churches and religious charitable organizations that flood into the area to offer assistance?  I remember years ago when our church sent a tsunami relief team to help with the clean up in Sri Lanka how amazed the people there were at the numbers of Christians from around the world who had come to their aid.  By contrast I don't remember seeing or hearing about a single atheist organization that sent help.  I may have missed it, but there weren't scores of atheist organizations who set up tents and trailors and work groups in Indonesia, Pakastan or New Orleans in the aftermath of those disasters either.

There is a simple reason:  the atheist has no answer for human tragedy.  C.S. Lewis, once an atheist himself, made this observation in Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the world seemed so cruel and unjust.  But how had I got this idea of "just" and "unjust"?  What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust?  Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by sayng it was a private idea of my own.  But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies... consequently atheism turns out too simple.

3.  As Christians we are to see that all of life's suffering is answered by the redeeming work of Christ on the cross.  Christianity, unlike any other religion, teaches that God Himself suffered on the cross and that by taking that suffering onto Himself accomplished the redemption of all creation.  The extent of His suffering was not just physical, for there are many people who have suffered more physically than Jesus suffered on the cross.  But none have suffered to the extent that Jesus suffered the rejection of the Father and the incredible consequences of our sin when He took all of that on Himself.  No one person has ever suffered the way Jesus suffered.

And yet it was through His suffering that the earth is being redeemed and will be redeemed.  It was through His suffering that I find my salvation and everyone who calls on Him finds salvation.

We know from scripture that Jesus carries the scars from His crucifixion with Him even in His glorified state.  This can only mean that every scar we recieve in this life will only make the next life better.    Everything we suffer in this life will be undone in the next.  So the more we lose and suffer in this life the more we experience joy and celebration in the next.

Every Christian can cry out, "Bring it on death!  Bring it on suffering!  The lower you lay me the higher He'll raise me!" 

I love this quote by Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov

"I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened."

If you are interested in reading more on this subject, here are some books I recommend:

The Reason for God by Tim Keller
What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey

Why Pat Robertson was Wrong

Yesterday on his CBN network, televangelist Pat Robertson made the embarrassing argument that Tuesday's 7.3 magnitude earthquake near Port Au Prince should be blamed on the Haitians' "pact with the devil" two centuries ago while seeking liberation from the French.

Robertson's comments should be condemned by Bible believing Christians for many reasons, but here are a few of the most obvious:

1.  While the Bible teaches that natural disasters are the result of our fallen nature that impacts all of creation (Genesis 1-3),  and while it is true that our decisions have consequences and we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7-8),  it is a huge theological leap to say that God singles out a group of people for His special punishment just because of some decision their ancestors made.

2.  The concept that if you always make good choices God will reward you and if you do bad things God will punish you is antithetical to the gospel.  This view is more akin to other religions such as Islam or Buddhism (Fate or Karma as examples) than it is to Christianity.  The Bible teaches that the rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45), that ALL things work together for the good (Romans 8) and we are to count it joy when we face trials of many kinds (James 1).  The most prominent example of this teaching of course is that the most evil, unjust and terrible thing that ever happened in history was the crucifixion of Jesus.  And yet it was that event that brought about the redemption of humanity.

3.  Pat Robertson should know better.  He should know that his words would be hurtful at a time like this.  It is incredulous that a minister of the gospel who has such a wide audience would have anything but incredible sympathy for the unbelievable misery and suffering of the people of Haiti, who live in one of the poorest countries on the planet.   As we all know, Jesus was drawn to the poor, loved and cared for the poor and taught us to take care of those who were hungry, thirsty, naked and sick.  Jesus taught that when we care for the poor we are doing His work.  (Matthew 25).

I agree with Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church, who in an inerview with the Chicago Tribune said this about Robertson's statement:

"At this time we should be offering the people of Haiti God’s forgiveness and mercy rather than condemning them for some decision made by their ancestors, It is much better for us to ask a different question: what can we do to help those who have been victimized by this terrible trauma, rather than to speak judgment upon them on behalf of God."

For those who are interested in helping with the relief effort, click here.

Bangkok Busy Busy by Kathleen ( no money for editing)

It smells like Asia as soon as I step off the airplane, cigarettes and cement, some sort of flowers. I inhale deeply. I missed this smell. It’s warm and welcoming. The air is almost stale. I can't tell you how nice it is to not be cold. The snow and ice of home seems 8,000 miles away, but I think it’s more like 10,000.
As we drive into the city, Fiz falls asleep in the taxi leaving me to look out the window at colourful billboards and neon lights. Bangkok seems friendlier than India, calmer than China. I like it immediately.

The city is sprawling. There is a cluster of high rises but most of it is low-lying, stretching on and on. We get to the hotel, down a small alley, passed expensive homes. Its as nice as the pictures on-line were, which is remarkable.

The next day: We get up early, no choice of ours, we are sharing a room with 5 or 6 girls of unknown European origin. They aren't speaking a language I recognize, but it’s a romance language for sure. Which means, but deduction that they are probably Italian. Whatever they are they are loud and they are earlier risers. So, we get up.

We head for Khao San Rd. the main backpacker destination in town. I am not enchanted, its overrun with tourists and all the stalls are selling the same cheap, "pretend your cool" shit that you can get anywhere in this part of the world. Fiz on the other hand seems quite taken, I'm not sure why. I'm more interested in back streets and quiet alleys. Places where I can take pictures…..( I feel like such a stereotype when I say things like that.)

Next, to the Royal Palace. It’s amazing. There is no real way to convey to anyone how spectacular it is because it sounds tacky to describe and isn't photogenic. Go there see it. It’s all gold and shiny, mirrors towers and chedis glittering in the brilliant sun. It’s blindingly brilliant.

We end up at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha( who is jade not emerald btw.) Reading about him I was unimpressed, not only is he misnamed but he's quite small. Seeing him on the other hand was a totally different experience. The energy coming off of him pushed me to the floor, like most other in the room. Maybe it was the holy water, placed on my head with a lotus, maybe it was the chimes in the rafters speaking the voice of the wind, maybe it was the incense, but it was divine. We sat in contemplative prayer for many minuets. The Thai's around us had gold leaf on their faces, part of a devotional offering taking place outside. It was as amazing as Khao San Rd was not.

For lunch we ventured back to the backpacker central and then down a small ally passed a huge school hidden amongst the buildings where the sounds of children playing unseen echoed off the concrete walls. There we found Ethos, a vegan/vegetarian hangout, with low-lying tables and huge plates of very good fare. I felt even more relaxed when I heard " Under the full moon light we dance we dance /holding hands we dance". Pagan tunes in Bangkok so far from the woods of Western Mass, I am consistently amazed by the power the internet has in connecting everything.

After lunch we took the bus back home, but by then the time change was catching up and so sleep soon ensued.

back dated blogs by Fiz

Hey all! So this all happened a couple of days ago, but lets bring you up to speed.

January 10:

The journey has begun for real! I will not see my mother or anyone else this side of the Atlantic ocean for four months, as of now.

There is this cute little baby, well toddler, running around exploring the gate we are waiting at. He ran up to these massive windows and looked outside at the tarmac for a minute, then he wandered in front of us for a second. Then he went back to the window, touched it, and then he went running around behind us. A second or two later he ran back to the window and touched it again then went along the length of the window and up another row of seats.

He did this for a good ten minutes or so, till he had gotten his bearings. Meanwhile this other toddler is being led around by his older brother. Both little tykes are so small and could loose themselves so easily in the vastness of Terminal B had they no method of not getting lost.
Kinda puts our trip in a little bit of perspective.

Some time after January 10 ended:

We have a 13 hour lay over in Abu Dhabi. The lounges are closed to poor backpackers like ourselves. Even if we had the cash I don’t think they would let us is dress like we are. The look they gave us was of pure disdain.

We wanted to wi-fi more than anything so we lingered in the hall and tried to pick up a signal, which failed. So we retreated to the only place with benches, the trustworthy Burger King. Kathleen fell asleep for a bit on the bench with the TV blaring a football game. I just had a four hour conversation with a bird that had made a home for itself in food court.

Our trip is in phases, this is how much we have got through:

Phase 1 (drive to NYC with mothers and stay in cousins apartment) - complete
Phase 2 (flight from JFK to AUH) - Complete
Phase 3 (layover in AUH the length of our flight from JFK) - nearly done
Phase 4 (flight from AUH to BKK) - wish us luck

Abu Dhabi has a crazy airport. There are

a.) a posh looking hotel (inside it),

b.) As many first and business class lounges as there are economy class seating areas,

c.) Potentially more duty free shops as JFK although it is 1/3 the size, and

d.) The coolest traffic control tower ever, it looks like a giant sail, or a colossal dorsal fin. The most striking thing about it is that it is the tallest thing visible from the airport in any given direction. We would know too, having just spent 12 hours here walking laps and taking naps. Hopefully in 2 hours or so we will be in the air again.

Later the same day:

Phases 3 and 4 Complete. We are in Bangkok and finally have a wi-fi connection! Laying in bed next to Kathleen I'm looking around the room we are in. There are 6 other beds and I think I'm the only other male in here. We got in and put our bags down on the last remaining bunk bed. Shortly there after I realized that there was either a purse or feminine sandals near every other bed. ha!

Our roommates just walked in, not really sure how I feel about being that token guy in the co-ed dorm.

Britt Hume was Right

Last week on Fox News Sunday, news anchor Britt Hume rocked the secular media when he made the observation, when asked his opinion, that Tiger Woods should seek redemption and forgiveness in Christianity.  This was his exact quote:

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation for him. I think he’s lost his family, it’s not clear to me if he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

The resulting guffaws from the secular press were predictable.   Media critic Tom Shales called him a "sanctimonious busybody".  Andrew Sullivan accused him of destroying the distinction between religious and secular discourse.  MSNBC anchor David Shuster declard his comment as "truly embarrising" and fellow anchor Keith Olbermann compared Hume's advice for Tiger to Islamic terrorism!

So what was it that Hume did that was so over the top?  How did he cross the line?  The answer is that he expressed his actual belief- and the belief of every true Christian- that the only answer to the problem of sin is the one who has paid the price for that sin.  Here's a news flash for Olbermann, Shuster et al:  True Christians believe what they say they believe.

True Christianity is not apathetic or ambivalent.  As C.S. Lewis has said "One thing Christianity cannot be is moderately important."  If Christianity is true and Jesus really did die for our sin then that is a truth that must be expressed.  N.T. Wright put it this way:


"How can you live with the terrifying thought that the hurricane has become human? That the fire has become flesh? That Life itself has walked into our midst? Christianity either means that, or it means nothing. It is the most devastating disclosure of the deepest reality in the world, or its a sham, a total nonsense. Most people, unable to cope with saying either of those two things are condemned to live in the shallow world in between."

Hume was correct in his assesment of both Buddhism and Christianity.  There is no redemption or forgiveness in Buddhism because there is no concept of sin.

There is only one belief system that truly gets to the heart of the issue of the human soul- and that is the belief in Christianity that if we follow the sin of the human heart to it's natural conclusion we will meet with utter destruction and the only solution to that problem is the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.  It is only in our acceptance of Him as our savior that we find true redemption and forgiveness because it was His work on the cross that utterly satisfied God's sense of perfect justice.  That is the truth that sets us free.  No matter how many times we may have failed.  There is no other religious belief system that teaches anything like this.  As Christians we look at Tiger Woods and say "There except for the grace of God go I!"

In an interview with Laura Ingram on Thursday Hume made the observation that he believes  the disdain for his opinion was centered mostly in his Christianity.  I think this is probably true.  If he had said, "My advice to Tiger is to turn to Atheism",  I doubt there would be much of a ripple. 

But I think the true irony of criticism of Hume is that the intoleration of his expression of belief comes from a secular world view that looks down on intoleration.   It is almost as if the secularism we find in popular culture says something like "We are so much better than people who think they are so much better!"

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post put it very succinctly:

Hume's critics hold a strange view of pluralism. For religion to be tolerated, it must be privatized -- not, apparently, just in governmental settings but also on television networks. We must have not only a secular state but also a secular public discourse. And so tolerance, conveniently, is defined as shutting up people with whom secularists disagree. Many commentators have been offering Woods advice in his travails. But religious advice, apparently and uniquely, should be forbidden. In a discussion of sex, morality and betrayed vows, wouldn't religious issues naturally arise? How is our public discourse improved by narrowing it -- removing references to the most essential element in countless lives? True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully -through persuasion -not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.

Shuster and Olbermann and a host of others in the popular media have strong beliefs that they express regularly that flow from a secular humanist world view.  No one can blame them for their steadfast belief.   But they should not be so intellectually dishonest as to think that they are the only ones who have the right to express them.