so i did.

i'm a blood donor.

O positive, if you're wondering.

but, MY GOD does it hurt.

i just had another blood test today because some people think its necessary to get tested for some funny diseases. (read: them screw-ups at MARA think i need to be tested for Hep. C antigens)

OW.

but i do like the punture wound. pretty cool actually. if i could upload a picture of it, i would. but i'm too lazy to do so. so just imagine a big gaping whole in my arm behind my elbow where the vein is, laced in dried blood, nicely forming a dark brown, almost blackish red crust where the needle went in. and then the skin around it is dark blue/ purple, like a bruise only slightly greeninsh/yellow towards the edge. the punture wound is right in the centre of this one inch diameter bruise.

cool no? 

i wish. by the exaggeration you can tell its not true.

its just a pinprick of a wound.

chances of me returning to malaysia for good after the 4 year stint in nz are slim right now. what is there for me to return to?

• a job i dont want to be doing, but which i am bonded to for at least 5 years.
• a family i'm practically estranged from. actually i estranged myself.
• parents who are all jesusy, with whom i dont agree much on in terms of beliefs.
• siblings who can pretty much take care of themselves.
• basically a life that can be described in 3 words: mediocre, lukewarm and beige. get my point?

 i am trying to escape, i'm not going to deny it.

besides,if i do have a family, i want my children and significant other to have a promise of a better life and a better future with opportunities this country cannot accommodate.

someone mentioned to me last night, and this is a very interesting point: WHY is it that some christians who come from what they claim to be a liberal church where they are more "laid back" can have such a narrow mindset, while there are some from a very strict catholic background who are more open and tolerant to other beliefs and opinions?

i tried to answer it, and my reasoning last night was this: in all its liberalness, they dont want to seem too free so they become more narrow minded.

to which i was replied "BULLSHIT".

well, it is a valid question and a very strong point, albeit a sweeping statement in itself, and let me try to answer it.

and this is just assumptions, i admit, with no solid proof, but its my take on things:

the term "Liberal" with which they attach themselves to, is, in my opinion, a method of self-assurance. this way, they can console themselves by saying they are not taking things out of context and being overzealous in their interpretations and application of whatever they think they should be interpreting and applying. self delusional? perhaps. besides, who actually gave them the security umbrella of the term "Liberal" in the first place? themselves.

now, in addressing the issue of WHY ARE THEY SO NARROW MINDED. it all comes down to how "Liberal" is going to be defined in the first place. if

• Liberal = letting other people have their say and their views while being able to have your own without being intimidated, and at the same time not condemning others for what they think, then liberal does not automatically mean narrow minded.
• Liberal = interpreting holy scripture as you see fitting to your liking, and letting other people have their interpretation (this does happen, eg: how people see the events at the end of the age unfolding) then this also equals liberal. BUT if you cannot accept another viewpoint and feel this incessant urge to try and convince others that you and you alone are right, then this is certainly qualities pertaining to narrow mindedness and borderline moronic.

so we take the second definition since that relates to the issue. now, back to the issue itself; WHY ARE THEY SO NARROW MINDED?

• bear in mind, it is a sweeping statement to say they are narrow minded because (and lets get all sociological about this) prior socialisation has to be taken into account. how were they brought up in the first place? if they were taught, from a young age, that its completely OK for other people to have a differing opinion, then they would probably be more open to other possibilities.
• in all their liberalness, there is the conflict of being moderate and not taking things too seriously. with religion, it is a very weighty issue that requires total and complete surrender at times when you give it "all to Jesus" et cetera. the conflict can either result in one being nonchalant and unaffected by religion OR the total opposite. narrow minded, "me first, me always right" mentality.
• who guided them? someone who is unaware of what they're getting themselves into CAN be fooled by the guise of the term "Liberal". if whoever led them is pretty Jesusy, then the follower, if he or she does not question or is not perceptive enough, can be influenced by the Jesusy leader.

now, the other part of the question:why is it that there are some from a very strict catholic background who are more open and tolerant to other beliefs and opinions:?

• with a strong enough grounding in their faith from their strict background, they are not intimidated and do not feel it is their divine duty to convince the world that they are right.

KEY PHRASE: THEY ARE NOT INTIMIDATED.

once again, THEY ARE NOT INTIMIDATED.  

i do realise it is a sweeping statement that generalises people and their belief system and doesnt address minor issues but i am very open to criticism and they are most welcome here. anybody wanna contribute thoughts, ideas or objections can do so freely on one condition : have an open mind be mature enough to accept that not everybody thinks like you do and you're not always right.