Futility

A letter:

There is nothing too dear that I cannot abandon should they prove to be lies and falsehoods.

So if you think whatever I say or think is wrong, then say so, but only let me justify why it is not. And you are most welcomed, in fact imperative upon you, to demolish my justification, for if you are successful, I have learn a truth, and I am better for it.

But to indulge in sentimentalism, to flatter to make the other merely happy, or to insult to hurt as revenge, to me is an utter waste of time, meaningless and the ultimate futility.

I do not care for happiness, I do not seek it; and I can bear all pain, for such is a necessity in life. I am unaffected by any attempts to influence or coerce me in any way by means of these. Only the truth will move me.

So I am true to what I believe, I am and be what I say. I do not put on masks, make pretenses or play social games. Sure there are time for these, but between friends is certainly not it, or else there is no need for friends.

I have no problem you walking away if you do not like what you hear. I do not speak to please, to flatter or to affect. I speak as I see it. For only when you know the truth can you truly move on in fruitful and effective ways.

And I certainly can see wrong. Do not accept whatever I say as the 'gospel truth'. Go construct within yourself with your own evidence - experiential or otherwise. And if you think I am wrong, just say so, if fact I demand that you say so.

But this is not to deny that the truth can be harsh, brutal and piercing, for that is the very nature of the truth. But to speak the truth is not the same as to be harsh, brutal and destructive of the other. But rather only when you know what is, can you go on to become what can be. Anything else is delusion, a psychological crutch and just delaying the inevitable.

So I am what I am. And you didn't know me only yesterday.

If I am irrelevant or even detrimental to you, I may not know that. But you do and you can talk with your feet. At no time are you under compulsion to hear me at all - you can even delete this email without reading it for example.

Finally everyone has some handicap, congenital or circumstantial, by our deliberate acts or otherwise. Some of these are physical and some psychological or even physiological; some are seen and some are unseen. But we all need to learn to cope with these limitations which will, by necessity, curtail us in one way or another. In some sense no one is better off than another, or anyone more deprived than another. We are all deficient in one way or another.

And you can indeed want to believe you have no, or deny that you have any, limits, and to challenge yourself to overcome whatever that is apparently limiting you. But we can only do so at a greater effort than others without the limitations, and that may cost us opportunities elsewhere.

So sometimes it is foolish to challenge our limitations just to demonstrate to, or delude, ourselves that there are no such limitations.

Perhaps it is better - and truly more positive - to focus on what we are, and to be that individual and being, for which we are unique, special and gifted, and, if you hold any notion of destiny, to fulfill the purpose for which you are born.

In other words it may be more fruitful to do what you can do and are good at it, then to do what you are not good at or handicapped in. The latter is really just a form of self-worship, which is also a futility.

Happiness

Something written as a letter more than a year ago:

If ignorance is bliss, why do I want to know anything?
If delusion makes me happy, why do I not delude myself?
If darkness is warm and cosy, why do I need any light?
If flattery makes me feel good, why do I want to hear the truth?

Life is to be enjoyed, to seek pleasures and happiness,
Is there anything wrong with that?
I may not know tomorrow, but I know today
And today I want to be happy not sad,
to please, be pleased and not deny myself pleasures

Why do I want to burden myself with unpleasant things?
with unnecessary sorrows, and unhappy ideas?
So be far away from me those who tell me bad news
and wants to rob me of my happiness, pleasures and comforts.

Although tomorrow, I may die,
I am already happy today and yesterday;
And tomorrow I can always continue to delude myself,
to walk away from unpleasant things and people,
or just close my eyes and dream my own dreams.

The Gospel: NOT Choose God, BUT Become Christ

A response to a contact on Flickr:

All on earth and in the heavens accomplishes God's will.

And this is so whether we know it, or not, and whether we choose to do His will, or not.

The sun, the stars and the moon proclaim God, and so do kittens, and puppies and sunflowers.

The Pharoah of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Cyrus of Persia, and the Romans, all fulfilled what God intended for Israel: to forge, destroy, restore it and finally to destroy it again.

And even when God's people have deliberately and blatantly opposed God's will, when it was revealed and made known to them in no uncertain terms, even so is God's will fulfilled.

Israel was not to have a king, but the Israelites asked God for a king, in defiance to what God said. And God listened to them and gave them Saul. And from Saul we have David. And from David, we have adultery and murder and Batheseba. And from Bathseba we have Solomon. And from Solomon we have Jesus.

We will not and cannot know what if Israel have not asked for a king. But we can be certain that we will have Jesus revealed in due time.

And so who and what are we?

We did not choose God, just as we, and nobody, chose us to be born. Even your parent didnt know its you they were making. We are who we are solely due to, and for, the will and purpose of God.

Whether we come to know of this God in our later lives, is again not of our choice. We have no say in the time, places, circumstances, and environment in which we will grow up or die.

But we know and can be assured that all accomplished God's will, even unknowingly and unwillingly, just as every ant that crawls on the earth and every wind that blows where we know not, do so too.

And we are born again, chosen to know him again solely due to, and for, the will and purpose of God.

So now that we know, what then?

Then we now know that we are children of God, and we call God our Father.

And we can reject God, but we cannot reject who we are.

And unless we become who we are, we will be like fish out of water, ontologically out-of-joint, and irrelevant and meaningless, to ourselves, and everyone else.

So we do what we do because of who we are.

We did not choose to do God's will because we seek to please him and to seek his favour and blessings. But rather we do God's will because we are part of God himself, as his children, being what we ought to be.

His love and care for us has nothing to do with what we do, or what we don't, and whether we choose to do his will, or not. He send showers and sun to shine on all the world.

But denying ourselves and turning away from our identity, who we truly are, and who we are destined to be, hurts God bad, just as a parent hurts bad, when they see the potential in their children go to waste and or remain undeveloped.

And so we ought not to preach choice. Rather we ought to preach being.

We are to be, to continually become, the children of God, taking after the Father, even as Christ takes after the Father.

The gospel is not that you can now choose God, but rather that you are all children of God, that you can call God, Father. The gospel is not Choose God, but Become Christ.

And your purpose in life is to be this child, even as Christ was and is, and to live life.

Living Word

A response to a blog:

alma said:

” ... THE GOOD SERMON IS OUR VERY OWN LIVES… “

Thanks for the affirmation, for every matter shall be established by two or three witnesses. For that was what I arrived at when I pondered on this thread and I shall now say the same thing too.

Living Word

Every member of the Body is a living Word, the Word becoming flesh in you, born again.

And this Word is read, whether or not it is spoken, whether or not intended, and at every moment and any place, for all times you are alive.

The church is not a place nor time, the church is to go to the world, and not the world to the church, the Word is as much for the ‘churched’ as for the many yet-to-be-called in the world.

And it is most glaring, and most false, and most deceitful, when what you actually say is at odds or contradicts what your lives truly speak.

We are all letters written on living, bloody and bleeding hearts.

And yes, bleeding hearts.

For any heart alive will be pierced by the pain, the sorrow, the agonies, the sufferings, and all the evil that is all around us, unless you are not of this world or evil itself.

But yet the heart lives, yet not it, but the Word.

And thus Christ is resurrected in our hearts for all to see.

And that is the best sermon: Christ in you, the Word, alive.

"I respect what you say, but ... "

A response to some blog:

I am sorry but I have to say I find this constant phrase gnawing, irritating, and annoying, namely, "I respect this and that, but ... "

Does "respect" mean anything in such a phrase?

If you want to say you disagree, why don't you just say you disagree. Why need to preface it with "I respect but ..."? Did I say anything less just saying, "I disagree"?

It is clear that we all have different opinions. So what do you mean when you say, you respect his opnion but you disagree?

Do you mean that you think his opinion wrong, baseless, flawed, but nonetheless it was becoming, proper and fitting of the opinion holder, and so deserving your "respect"?

Or are you saying that you disagreeing just to his opinions but not disagreeable to the person of the opinion holder? ie you respect the person or persons (even if you dont know who they are personally) but not his/their opinions.

Or are you saying his opinion is his opinion, it does not bother you, has no effect or impact on you, and you hold another, different, and even opposing one, and that it wont bother you to change his either. Then respect here means that you do not intend to interfere to try to change what his opinions are. He can keep his opinion but dont try to push it on me.

Or it is just the soothing stroke before you deliver the slap, and that respectful delusion is necessary because it comforts you that you have "respected" the person? And you can slap him the harder for it.

So what do you mean when you say you respect this and that, but ....

I am sorry. I respect what you guys are saying BUT I am perplexed, befuddled and entirely disrepectful! And please respect my opinions. Thank you.

Natural Disasters

A response to some blog:

I think I mentioned somewhere here after Katrina that more 'natural' disasters are to come.

No, no I am not a prophet, I am just being scientific.

Yes really, it is entirely predictable.

It is something called extrapolation from past events and given the 'nature' of things, such as earthquakes and hurricanes and unknown diseases. All scientists (and actuarists too) do that don't they?

So it is obvious that we can see.

It is also obvious that we do not know nor able to control everything, and that there is a 'power' out there seemingly beyond our domination, or at least for now.

But the human spirit is certainly strong and resolute and will strive ever harder to put these elements under control, as humans have subjected other natural elements in the past, eg nuclear energy, smallpox, gravity, to name a few. Mankind are now left with only a few small things, such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, global warming, bird flu, ebola, poverty, the damned terrorists and travel to the stars of course.

But then if you think - and not too hard - about it, when we say all these 'natural disasters are caused by 'Nature' are we not really resorting to the natural 'god-of-the-gaps' fallacy?

That is we really don't know what 'caused' it, and we are simply calling an unknown X with an undefined Y. It does not really changed anything: we know just as much, ie nothing.

And in 'natural' events we can substitute our ignorance with Nature or Tau Pek Kong or Allah or karma or Fate or Mother Earth or Satan. You can choose what you like, for whatever reasons.

But can you really choose what you like? Is it simply a matter of choice? ie what you choose is what is? Or that you have no choice: if you choose wrong you are damned? Well you may choose to think or say I am speaking rubbish too, and Ctrl-Alt-Del all I said. Sure, no prob.

But if you say 'Nature' is simply 'what is' then you are unwittingly acknowledging and calling 'it' the God of the bible, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of Moses.

For when Moses asked God His name, God said, "I AM I AM", ie God is the very essence of existence and being itself, everything that is, is God, including Nature, and hurricanes and earthquakes and bird flu and those damned terrorists too.

So that makes God a wicked and cruel and vegeneful God? Or on contrary a loving, patient and and forgiving God?

Think about it.

Oldest noodles unearthed in China

From a BBC website:

The remains of the world's oldest noodles have been unearthed in China.

The 50cm-long, yellow strands were found in a pot that had probably been buried during a catastrophic flood.

Radiocarbon dating of the material taken from the Lajia archaeological site on the Yellow River indicates the food was about 4,000 years old.

No, I am not talking about noodles.

Continuing,

Professor Houyuan Lu said: "Prior to the discovery of noodles at Lajia, the earliest written record of noodles is traced to a book written during the East Han Dynasty sometime between AD 25 and 220, although it remained a subject of debate whether the Chinese, the Italians, or the Arabs invented it first.

"Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China," the researcher from the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, explained to BBC News.

Well so we think.

Until someone else discover some older noodles somewhere else.

Really we never will know who invented noodles and when.

My point here is that we do not know what we do not know.

What we know is only what we know.

Truth is more than what we know, or even knowable to us.

What we know can only reveal falsehood but not fully uncover the truth.

Is the Ability to Choose, Freedom?

No.

To choose just means that there are choices, at least two.

Immediately it can be discerned that your 'freedom' is already curtailed by these choices, ie you cannot make a choice other than these choices.

And then even if you can choose, ie select one of the choices, it does not mean that you are choosing freely.

For you may be already predisposed or conditioned in one way or another, internally or externally, rational or otherwise, physically, physiologically or psychologically, to prefer one over another.

Even without the overt threat of physical harm or denial to access to resources such as food or money, you can be tempted by the promised outcomes, perceived or real, of your choices, valued in terms valuable to you, be it money, prestige, power, principles, or whatever that matters to you.

To choose freely means you can be completely indifferent to the choices and any arbitrary choice is just as good, or as bad, as the other. (Or is it?)

So the real source of freedom and of power is that which is able to influence and condition your decision about choices.

It could be a belief, for example a belief in rationality and the maximisation of benefits accrued to oneself.

If so then choosing means accessing knowledge and data to compute the outcomes of your choices and ranking these outcomes according to some value. And not to be free then means either not having the knowledge and data, or the inability to compute the outcome and make the evaluations correctly.

Or it could be a belief that the outcome must be 'good', not only to you but to all; or it is a belief that the outcome must be one that pleases God, or god or gods, or just someone or something else.

But then you are truly not free at all. For these beliefs hold you captive, in that you cannot abandon them, and you apply them consistently, consciously or not, and even that you cannot choose if you have none of them.

And then also no one really have complete knowledge to compute outcomes or to evaluate them. There will always be unknowns and unknowables that will make all such forecasts uncertain, if not even meaningless, ie you may have done just as 'well' making a random choice.

To take a political example, merely being democratic does not mean you are free. It only mean you can choose. And your choice is entirely influenced and manipulated by the promises of the politicians. They will make promises valued in terms that are valuable to you. For example the Republicans in the US promised 'Christian values' to tempt the 'Christians' to vote them. And the 'Christians' fell for it.

In effect what really happened at the polls is that you are taken captive by the democratic illusion that you are free if you can vote. The reality is that you are just giving legitimacy to one with the majority vote to possess and exercise power over all the land.

So what then in true freedom?

That is another question altogether, and may have nothing to do with choosing altogether.

I Love You

A letter:

Look up! Look out! See the light! See the BIG picture.

Life is not just about eating and drinking and getting the best fuck. You are wasting your life in futile chase after nothing in the chat rooms, on fridae and in the spas, and where else I do not know.

Are you sure you know what you are doing?

And am I the one wasting my time or you, truly, are wasting yours?

Look up! Look up! Look and see!

There are tsunamis, there are earthquakes, there are hurricanes, there are wars, there is global warming, there is bird flu, and many more will come.

Thousands died. Millions of lives are uprooted and turned topsy turvy, and just as many are in pain, sorrow and anguish.

Why, why do such things happen?

They dont matter to you?

Perhaps.

They dont touch you, for now. But surely you know of some who are here today and gone tomorrow.

All you care about is your gluttony, undisciplined abandon to sensual pleasures, wanton gratification of your horniness, without care for who you are. You may know how to care for your flesh and its carnal needs but do you really know how to take care of your true person?

But there is a reason for everything that happened in the world..

Please get out of your hole and get into the light.

The bus is still waiting for you at the bus-stop. The bus driver is God. He is waiting.

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

I love you.

Thoughts on Words

A response to some 'Christian' blog:

Words kill and words give life.

Then surely some were murdered here. And I wonder if any dead were made alive.

And not counting the numerous non-Christians who read this site and see all the squabbling, the abuse of Christianity for political power, the ego trips, the pride, the stupidity, the superstitions, etc etc

Has anyone blessed anyone here?

And then can that God has blessed be cursed, and that cursed be blessed?

How can I curse
those whom God has not cursed?
How can I denounce
those whom the LORD has not denounced?
[Num 23:8]

So it is only God who bless or curse. How much less can anyone speak to change it?

“... how can you who are evil say anything good?”, Jesus

But if it is God’s word, then it is only good, and the only proper response is Amen!

Only the wicked and evil refuses to acknowledge God’s word. And we have the example of Jacob and his sons who refuses to accept God’s word as revealed to Joseph in his dreams, not once but twice.

Now has anyone heard a donkey speak?

Well at least metaphorically speaking, in that you recognised that the word is of God, despite the lack of credentials or credibility on the part of the speaker, be it another human or any other thing.

So the liar can sometimes speak the truth too, if the listener hears truly and not judge.

And on the other hand the truth may not always be. Job’s friends were certainly speaking the truth.

Going To Church

My reponse to some blog:

If I may just sneak in a few more words.

Lets THINK purely (Phil 4:8) with the mind of Christ and not as you have been cultured by the things in this world – and churches – of these end days.

And lets think about “going to” in contrast to “being”.

I am not sure “going to” is biblical at all. But I am absolutely certain that we are called to be the church, as one part, as a unique, vital, and essential member of this living body.

And each, the temple of the Holy Spirit, is to contribute in ways gifted, to the world, and not just to your “church”.

(And in the city of Jerusalem, every building is a temple.)

And each is to do so, in whatever ways, large or small, seen or unseen, in his or own situation and circumstances, constantly, as God have placed you in accordance with his sovereign will and purpose, in all His inscrutable wisdom.

We – ie anyone who is living, feeding daily, if not constantly, on the Word – are the church whenever, wherever we are, and also anytime, everytime, all the time. So is there a need to go anywhere?

And we have only one Father, one Teacher, and one Head in this church.

And yes some members are to preach, and those so called will preach: here or there, now or later, to one person, or to many, in the day or in the night, in the dank, dark, dirty street corners, or in a brightly lighted auditorium, in letters, in speeches, or in acts, virtually or face to face, anywhere, anytime, even beyond death, as the Spirit compels, and not only in “church”.

But all, rest assured, will be fed. For if your evil earthly father will not see you go hungry, how much more your heavenly Father.

And is not the church to be the light and the salt of the earth? Is not the church to go to the rest of the world, instead of something to go to? Is there such a thing to go to at all?

The “thing” you go to is just but one of many ways to be the true church.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
[Phil 4:8]

Christian Government

Something I wrote as a comment to some blog:

Some of my thoughts, a little lengthy, and not entirely complete yet.

All power is God’s

All governments of the world are here to administer power, which fulfils God’s purposes on earth, all for the sake of the predestined and the elected. (Yes past tense, as God have chosen them, even before creation itself: You can’t choose God, God chose you.)

It does not matter who or what is the government. God is not captive nor hostage to human institutions.

Some examples: Egypt and Joseph, Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar, Persia and Esther, Persia and Cyrus. In all these instances, God showed how real power is exercised, and the agencies again need not be so-called Christian. Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are the obvious cases where secular power secularly administered serves God’s purposes, as it was ordained.

Christian President and pro-Christianity President.

There is a difference.

The former walks with God in the office of the Presidency, striving to maintain his personal witness, as everyone who is called does so, wherever he is, and whatever he is doing, within his ‘neighbourhood’ as given to him by God.

The latter sets himself out to be a champion for Christianity. Now it really does not matter whether or not the latter is a Christian to proclaim such, only that he is seen as one; it is all a matter of political expediency, as in whether, for example, Karl Rove thinks its necessary for the spin and to win the vote, eg Bush’s anti-gay stance was entirely politics.

The Republicans are really more pro-Christians than pro-Christianity. They needed the “Christian” votes.

God’s Champion is Called, not Voted

God have shown he has no need for any human to champion him or to exercise power for him. Even so, that role is not for anyone to say, even less for the masses to vote for, but only God to call, and it certainly need not be the President.

Perhaps being President disqualifies you from the role altogether, not unlike David barred from building the temple.

USA is not a Christian nation

It is obvious that USA is not doing Christianity a favour at all, for isn’t vengeance God’s and instead Christians are to turn your cheek and continue to love.

Can the USA as a nation demonstrates such true Christian value? No President will be elected nor remain in office if he does so. On this evidence alone, one can conclude that Christianity have been abused and exploited as political capital to gain votes and to get power, for its own sake, i.e. politics in another cloak.

The USA is certainly no Christian nation. No other nation can be, but only the church, the true catholic church in the world, and only it.

Balaam

The sin of Balaam is one of the sins of the end days (See Revelations). It is the sin of abusing God’s gift, akin to the sin of using God’s name in vain.

Balaam abused his God-given gift for commercial and political benefits and influence. He prophesised for whoever that pays him, perhaps in prestige, recognition or money or all of them. Whereas God’s prophets is to speak God’s word to whomever, whenever and wherever God wants his word spoken to. Samuel seeking David is an example.

Balaam is Alive

Campaigning on the basis of pro-Christianity tantamount to the sin of Balaam, for it abuses Christianity for political power.

And both the power-to-be that made this its platform and the voters who vote for it, sin. Both parties are doing it for their own power’s sake and less, if at all, for God’s. God was only in name, vainly.

So Balaam continues to live in the modern world. And no one will listen to a donkey, will they?

Anti-Christ’s Strategy

Finally how more devious and evil a plan to subvert the church can there be than for the devil to be a christian and to lead the church, or the one seemingly so, from within.

It is not for nothing the beast is called the anti-Christ. Like a reflection in a mirror, the image is completely true to the subject but differs only in one aspect, that it is false and not true.

Christianity in the USA may now be more political than Christian, eg unable to distinguish Bush’s anti-gay stance as political and mistaking it for ‘Christian values’, and therefore it is seemingly strange to separate church from state.

Asking Anything

Peng: I am praying that Team A wins tonight's Cup Final.

Yong: I support Team B, and I have been praying from the beginning that they win!

Chia: Well there will only be one winner tonight. How is God going to answer both your prayers?

Peng: Well I have faith in my prayers.

Chia: Really?! So how much have you betted on Team A?

Peng: Nah, I don’t bet!

Yong: So much for faith. I have betted $500 at 7:3 odds that Team B is the Cup Champions.

Chia: Only $500? And not all your money and more? And also what makes you so sure God hears you and not Peng?

Yong: I am not sure about Peng, but I am just taking Jesus' word simply and at face value, and claiming what He had promised. He said if we asked anything in his name, He will do it.*

*[John 14:14].

Peng: I sincerely believed that God hears me too, and I have certainly also prayed in Jesus' name. But I see what Chia is driving at. Surely one of our prayers will not happen, and one of us will be taking God's name in vain. But Chia, didn’t Jesus said that you can ask anything we want? How then do we have this contradiction?

** [John 14:14; 15:7; 15:16; 16:23,24]

Chia: Well Jesus did indeed say we can ask anything, but did Jesus say that anyone can ask anything, and He will do it.

Also remember the story in Acts? In that story some Jews tried to cast out demons in Jesus name, but the demon said, "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"*** and jumped on them and beat them.

So it is clear that it is not the thing asked that matter but the one who asked that makes the difference.

In the gospel of John some of these things that marked the person whom God will grant anything are those that have faith in and loves Jesus, remaining and abiding in Jesus, possesses the Holy Spirit, and asking in Jesus' name.

*** [Acts 19:13-16]

Yong: So then in this light, how, or rather, who should pray for the outcome of tonight's Cup Final? And do we not all conclude our prayers in Jesus name? Are we not asking in Jesus name?

Chia: Well if you are then how come one of your prayers will certainly not be answered. Asking in Jesus name is not saying the words, "In Jesus name", like some mantra or magic word. Asking in Jesus' name is asking as if Jesus would have asked himself, or asking in the authority and representation as Christ's servant on earth.

So when the demons are commanded to leave in Jesus' name, it is the same as if Jesus himself had commanded the demons. So if you do not have the authority from God to be his servant, you are in no position to represent Jesus and to ask anything in his name.

Yong: So how then do we pray?

Peng: Thy will be done, thy kingdom come ...?

Chia: Do you not think that this might be an inappropriate thing to pray at all? There may be things that we should not pray for. For example what good will it brings to anyone if either Team A or Team B wins? Will God be glorified?

And the people that win their bets tonight will glorify whatever god or gods they have prayed too. And God's name indeed will have been used in vain, debased to be made equal with any other gods'.

We will then have prostituted the promises of God for our earthy lusts for money and wealth. And we have abused God's gift of prayer, intended for God's work, bearing fruit and for our equipping, strengthening and sustainment, for something base and worthless.

Anger

God gets angry, and so did Jesus when he walked the earth.

Anger is not inherently evil nor bad in and of itself.

Just as love is not necessarily always pure without question. Love corrupted is lust and possessiveness, and things not to be loved are loved too. So as love is corruptible and corrupted, so is anger.

There is not a word to distinguish the two kinds of anger, perhaps only righteous and unrighteous anger.

Anger, righteous anger, is the appropriate response to injustice and unrighteousness. It is the sense of violation of the natural good, the inherent integrity of things, and the marring of beauty.

It is the reaction to an apparently senseless and meaningless tragedy, something which is totally avoidable and unnecessary. It is what we feel in our gut when we see the weak and poor discriminated, abused, and robbed. It is the natural and complete response to evil.

Unrighteous anger is the abuse and use of anger for other than a reaction to evil, and of course evil uses anger against good itself, attacking good as if it is evil.

Contradiction

What is the probability that the human species evolved from raw material like ammonia and carbon, that existed in the primial soup that was hypothesized to be earth when it was created?

Probably a very small number.

But since we are here, evolution must be a fact.

So what's improbable is not necessarily an impossibility.

What is the probability that God exists?

Maybe 1 preceeded by a millon million zeroes?

So God don't exist, or at least it is of no practical consequence whether he existed or not, since he is so improbable.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

[Matthew 7:2]

"Mama is now the successful owner of a spa"

This story is repeatedly broadcasted on the radio.

But it is only one story.

The broadcaster is asking for more similar stories.

It is sickenening.

Mama was once with the military. Quitted and tried other jobs. Got retrenched. Did some courses and so on. And now Mama is a "successful owner of a spa".

Oh c'mon!

Doth one swallow a summer maketh?

There are ten red balls in a bin of ten thousand black ones. You keep and count only the red balls you draw. And then you tell the world that you can get red balls as long as you keep dipping into the bin.

That's not the story.

That's not the whole truth.

And that makes it a lie.

How much does it cost to dip into the bin? How many times must you dip before you get a red ball?

For every Mama that becomes a successful owner of a spa, how many didnt make it? What happened to them?

It is not those like Mama who succeeded that is the concern, but those that did not. What are their stories?

Selling false hope is worst then telling people that there is no hope.

But people have become immuned to this.

They have gotten used to the 'lottery' mind set. As long as there is chance, no matter how miniscule, it is still better than none, and they will live on. As long they make past one day to the next, they are OK.

They rather be deluded and come into the light.

Kinds of Knowledge

Head Knowledge. This is the knowledge you learn in schools. With it you can answer questions and regurgitate facts, theories and arguments perfectly. But to me this knowledge is only good for debates and passing examinations. They are without life.

Heart Knowledge. This is knowledge that have been experienced. What was once theory is now real. You have accessed the fact or knowledge with your senses, and not merely as abstract mental entities. And you then understand what these things really meant. So now when you speak it can be discerned that it is tainted with realit, and stained with the dirt and dust from walking the word in life. Usually there is a certain humility in proclaiming the knowledge, and an awareness of knowing what works and what dont, and that the more you know the more you really dont know.

Living Knowledge. This is is the ultimate in knowledge, namely it becomes alive, living in you, and your life speaks this knowledge constantly, wordlessly and without speech. It becomes fully integrated with you and who you are. You breathe, think, walk and speak the knowledge without being conscious of it altogether. For example the word, loving your neighbour. Most of us have to struggle consciously against ourself to put that word to use, to practice it, to exercise it - ie we are at the heart knowledge stage only. To be integrated with the word, to attained living knowledge, means we now do it instinctively, unconsciously and unthinkingly. The word have become us and vice versa. For then indeed the word becomes flesh.

In the Beginning was the Word ...
the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us.

[John 1:1, 1:14]

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina, originally uploaded by Melinda.

Why are there "acts of God"?

So that we know of a God who acts.

"Acts of God" are not a punishment for people who sinned. For all people are sinners, there are none righteous.

And also not because some people in some parts of the world are greater sinners than others; for no sin is greater than another, and neither lesser too, but all sin are equally sinful.

God act, for people forget that it is God who is the Creator of all things.

We may plow the field, sow the seeds, but it is God who sent the rain and the sun at the right times to make the seed grow.

We strived to know so that we can better control the growth itself. We learn about climate and weather and biology and genetic science. We grow more and more in knowledge.

We know the best times and best places to plant, the best nutrient to feed the plants. We can now even engineer the best seeds for a particular geography and economic goal. We can tweaked a seed's genes to make it gives the best yields, the most resistance to pests, and the least tending, and so on.

But we still cannot make the rain fall and the sun shines as and when we want it.

Anyone who says that human knowledge will guarantees humankind certainty in all that we do, will be thought foolish.

And no man has yet caused any earthquake, or a hurrincane, or a tsunami, or a star to be born or die.

And yet we forget that what we do are only necessary for things to happen, but entirely insufficient.

Things happen only if God make them happen.

So "acts of God" is God speaking to the world that he is God.

And it is out of mercy that God keeps reminding the world that he is so.

That people die and people suffer lost are no argument that God is not merciful.

For all people die, one day. Only the manner, the timing, and one's readiness for it differ.

And people suffer lost everyday too at the hands of each other, but God is far kinder.

And David said ... "I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man."

[2 Sam 24:14]

On Thinking

Something so congruent with what I think and feel:

People do not like to think.
If one thinks, one must reach conclusions.
Conclusions are not always pleasant.

Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

Self Belief and Self Delusion

I was watching Arsenal vs Fulham and I heard the commentator mentioned that Arsenal is playing with a greater self-belief.

That started me thinking.

The commentators could have said Arsenal is now playing with more confidence, but it seems self-belief is the popular thing to say.

Also I thought that self-belief is another popular wisdom, namely it is something people want to and like to believe, for it sounds good, encouraging and optimistic.

And self-belief is used only for someone that believes something positive about themselves, and not something negative.

For example, no one would say Fulham have self-belief that they are going to lose, which they did of course. The objective of the game is to win and to believe you will lose is self-defeating and not self-believing. That's the English language. But rationally speaking what’s wrong with believing you will lose if you have reasons to believe so?

My aversion to the popular notion of self belief is that it can be easily muddled to become self-delusion, i.e. think and believe you can do it and you can and will do it; think success and you will succeed.

I think this is a lie.

You may immediately react to this and reject me as negative and pessimistic.

But what I am saying is that if self-belief is mere unjustified and unsubstantiated belief about yourself and your abilities, then it is irrational, foolish and potential dangerous too.

On the other hand you should be confident, optimistic and bold when you know, or some reasons to believe, that you are able to do something and accomplish it successfully.

I am not objecting to self-belief per se but rather the reasons for so believing or the lack thereof.

But you may say you don’t need to have reasons you only need to feel so. Then I say again, by definition, such a state is irrational, and borders on the mystical, and gives no grounds for being confident, one way or another.

I then did some research on the Internet.

There are indeed the popular notions that I suspect are out there:

For example from here, we have this: "To achieve any goal in life, you must believe you are going to be successful. If you do not, you are likely to fail."

And from here, we have, "Approaching new goals or challenges with a healthy mindset is crucial to achieving the results you strive for."

On the other hand, there is a well-written and rational analysis of self-belief in Wikipedia, here. The notion of self-belief is refined by the concept of self-efficacy, i.e. the ability to accomplish a thing with one own self, or as defined in Wikipedia, as "people’s perception of their ability to plan and take action to reach a particular goal."

We can think of a 2x2 matrix, with accurate and inaccurate perception on one axis, and able and unable on the other side.

One obvious concern area in real life is of course when your self-perception is inaccurate. If you are able but perceived otherwise, then you are shortchanging yourself. On the other hand if you are unable but perceived you are, then you may jeopardized yourself, i.e. you may try to bite off something more than you can chew.

And the answer to attaining accurate perceptions is to have mirrors, mostly other people, people who know you and whose judgments you can trust, as in the do not have ulterior motives telling you what they see.

There is also a link to an academic study of perceptions of self-efficacies with culture by the Freie Universität Berlin. You may be surprised but it seems that the Japanese and the Hong Kong Chinese have the lowest sense of self-efficacy when compared to Western cultures. Maybe the problem is in the way self-efficacy is measured.

I have copied here the ten questions used to assess self-efficacy:

1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.

2. If someone opposes me, I can find means and ways to get what I want.

3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.

4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.

5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.

6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.

7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.

8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.

9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of something to do.

10. No matter what comes my way, I'm usually able to handle it.

They sound very much like gut feelings and 'beliefs' about and ‘faith’ in yourself, i.e. the answers to these questions may not necessarily be reasonable or justified in your true abilities. For example you may say yes to the question that you can always get out of trouble, but in reality and in your historical track record it may not be so.

So it may be pseudo science after all.

But in any case self-perceptions of own abilities, or lack thereof, don’t really matter, unless there are some particular and desirable goal or goals to be reached. (Or when, because of your self-perceptions, you have no desire for some necessary and critical goals.)

And then it matters when there is a mismatch between your abilities, however perceived, and the desired goals. What these goals should be is another matter, but assuming that the goals are rightly desirable, then the question now is what do you do if you perceived yourself as inadequate to attain it on your own?

Then to persist by the sheer ‘self-belief’- either positively, i.e. I can do it no matter what, or negatively, i.e. I wont even think about it - is what self-delusion is all about.

Everything is Meaningless

There was a man
who wanted a thing badly for some time.
Then he got what he wanted.
But when he got it,
it was not what he wanted.
For what he had craved for, in his mind,
was different from what the real world is.

And then there was another man
who wanted a thing just as desperately.
But after some time
he forgot what he wanted,
and life still goes on,
without the thing he thought he cannot live without.
For what he thought, in his mind,
that he must have,
was not true.

And then there was the man
who rejected a good thing that was given to him.
He didnt seeked nor asked for this thing.
He didnt want this free thing
when it was given to him unexpectedly.
There can be many reasons why he didnt want it.
Maybe he have no need for the thing,
the good and bad thus being irrelevant.
Maybe he didnt know he needed that good thing.
But maybe he knew,
but he rather not have a good thing,
but prefers a bad thing instead.
He relished in his freedom
to choose the bad and to reject the good.

Then there was another man
who accepted the bad things that comes his way,
and did not reject them.
Again there can be many reasons.
He may not know it is a bad thing.
Or again he may have known,
but like the bad instead.
Or maybe he just cannot
or do not want to choose -
for reasons such as,
dont want to think,
no time,
takes too much effort, etc -
and takes whatever that comes his way,
good or bad.
So he may be tired of choosing
but rather just let "Nature takes its course".

So what we think we want,
may not be the thing we get,
no matter what we do;
and the things that we get,
no matter we seek them or not,
may not be the things we want.

And whether we know it or not,
we can seek bad desperately,
and reject the good given freely;
or we may think we seek and accept the good,
but what we get may be the bad instead.

So everything is meaningless.

----------------

"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."
Solomon, Eccl 1:2

On Wasting Time

Teck: Last night someone told me I was wasting my time in the chatroom.

Seng: So? What's new? I just had a terribly boring, utterly time-wasting meeting in the office today. So you tell me about time wasting.

Teck: I rather see it as an exchange: our time for money. And so no matter what we didnt waste our time.

Seng: But surely there are better things to do with our time, don't we?

Teck: Ya, but we cant do these better things without money can you?

Seng: If there are indeed better things to do. Anyway back to your chatroom, was it not ironic?

Teck: What do you mean?

Seng: Well wasn't he himself in the chatroom? Wasn't he wasting his own time too? If he really believed what he said, he should heed his own advice and never be around to chat with you.

Teck: No, not really.

Seng: How so?

Teck: Have you yourself not said that it is not what you do that matters, but rather why you do what you do. Different people have different reasons for being in the chatroom. It's your ends and means that determine whether you are wasting your time or not.

Seng: Well, well, since when have you thought and talked like this?

Teck: Since mixing around with the wrong company I suppose.

Seng: Ha! Ha! Ha! Well I am glad that at least you remembered some of the things I've said. I am also glad you are thinking more rationally and not just being emotionally reactive.

Teck: And you have to learn to be more emotionally reactive.

Seng: OK. Agreed. We are all deficient in one way or another. I need to mix around more with the right company then. So what then were your reasons - your ends and means - for being in the chatroom? Did you waste your time last night or not?

Teck: Was looking for fun.

Seng: And?

Teck: And had fun.

Seng: So?

Teck: So what?

Seng: So was it time well spent or time wasted?

Teck: I cannot say I wasted my time.

Seng: Hmmm. Then the means was effective. And that's how usually people assessed whether they are wasting their time or not: namely whether they get what they wanted, for the time and effort spent.

Teck: Yup.

Seng: But what of the ends? What makes spending time and effort pursuing one thing less wasteful than another thing? What makes doing this thing better than doing that thing?

Teck: There you go again. Thinking too much again. People just know what they want. They don't question them. When you are hungry you go look for food. You don't think about it.

Seng: It may well be so. But then we are more than mere animals. Humans are not just biological things, driven by instincts, or by our physiological wirings and our psychological makeup. We can and ought to be driven too by reasons and rationale, truth and beauty, hope and love, righteousness and justice, amongst other things.

Teck: Whatever. We have to eat we have to eat. You can't live on truth and beauty. Feed on love and fresh air and you will starve and die. And when you are dead and gone, righteousness and justice are irrelevant and meaningless.

Seng: Wow! You really have grown in your thoughts. It is a good argument and I will pursue it further. But immediately, tell me, did you really get what you wanted last night? Was the fun really fun?

Teck: You wont know if you never try.

Seng: But this is not the first time. You have tried many times in the past too. And you are still trying.

Teck: Yes, but that's all you have going for you: to try and try again.

Seng: I don't think that's the only way to look at it. The thing you seek may not be what you think it is, and you end up chasing after a mirage or an illusion.

Teck: Like mistaking a shadow for the real thing?

Seng: Yes, precisely. And we know you can never catch a shadow. You can try and try for all your life and you will get nothing. Such a chase is the ultimate time wasting: your entire life wasted in futility.

Teck: That was what we chatting last night too in the chatroom. I was telling him to give up waiting for the person who left him, and even now considers him an enemy. He is wasting his life away hoping that the person returns.

Seng: But what's the difference? He waits, and it is futile; you chase, and isn't it futile too? You are both wasting your time.

Teck: If you wait, nothing happens and nothing is changed. I act, and I am constantly creating chances, discovering new things, people and opportunities all the time. At least I have have hope that tomorrow can be a different day.

Seng: I still don't see the difference.

Teck: Why not?

Seng: Do you really think you are improving your chances for whatever you want by acting? And that by your inaction nothing changes? Surely the world don't wait for you to act to change. When I go to sleep at night, the other half of the world is full of events and activities, and when I wake up tomorrow, indeed the whole world is a changed world. And what you do may tantamounts to no more than chasing after the wind, and wont change an iota in the real world.

Teck: OK. OK. So we may be both after shadows. He waits for the shadow to come to him. I may be going after a shadow too. But how else can I know? By acting at least I may know better.

Seng: That is presuming he who waits does not know and have not learnt, and that you, on the other hand, have not learnt, and are willing to learn. But the lesson may already be available for the learning.

Teck: You are suggesting I am not learning?

Seng: Yes.

Teck: I have this thing against you.

Seng: What?

Teck: Why must you say things so unpleasantly and so negatively? Can't you say things differently and not make me feel so put down? Can't you say things positively and not make me feel hurt and to lower my self-esteem and confidence?

Seng: You rather I flatter you instead? I think it's a far grevious wrong - for both parties - to tell someone he is alright when he is not. Truth hurts because it was avoided in the first place, and truth hurts to wake you up from your delusion.

Teck: I know you are a stickler for truth and precision, but that's no reason for you to be rude and insensitive to others. What makes you think they want to hear you in the first place? And they may not be ready for it, and it does not help them to know it anyway. And then, when and if I want to know these truths, there are surely others more pleasant, who too can see and tell me the same things.

Seng: We are back to where we started. This is yet another instance of not what we do that matters but why we do it.

Teck: Ya, but you may have all the good intentions for me, but if I reject you, because I find you unpleasant, then all your good intentions comes to nothing, and you have wasted your time.

Seng: Can you not see beyond the superficial and the apparent, and know for sure what is real, which is silent and unseen? And again from what you just said, your values are very skewed and distorted. Do you think it is a fair trade, trading away what you called 'good intentions' for mere pleasantries? You rather someone be nice to you than true to you?

Teck: Hey this is a free market. I can choose. And I will choose the one who is nice and true.

Seng: So it seems. But that is just popular wisdom. And some people need experience - and to be able to learn from these - that popular wisdom is usually a fallacy. So then have you learnt anything from the real world? Is love really a free market? Can you shop and choose and trade yourself for someone to love you? Is this is fact of fiction?

Teck: I will soon know it.

Seng: Aren't you being presumptuous yourself here too? If you have to choose only between nice or true, how would you choose?

Teck: I am not interested in these hypothetical questions. I know what I want. Surely in the mass of people that I will meet in our lifetime there will be at least one who is nice and true. I just need to meet more people and more frequently. That's all to it.

Seng: And that you have been doing. But for how long? You may say you know when you have got what you want. If so, and assuming you know what you want, when will you call it a day, and say enough is enough? If you search for something, you too must know when to stop the search and accept that you cannot find it. And this may be either because it is not there, or you just cannot find it.

Teck: When I run out of resources - time and energy - or when some other substitute comes along. The substitutes may be imperfect but it is still closest at that moment to what I seek.

Seng: Like settling for polished shining iron, that will rust one day, instead of working to extract the gold from an ugly gold ore, but which will last forever?

Teck: I didn’t say that. Why should I reject an ore of gold? It is only that I have not found that nugget. And what makes you think that I am searching for anything at all in the first place?

Seng: I thought that it's you who is seeking for the one who is nice and true, and that you have to meet more people more often to achieve your goal. You didn’t say that?

Teck: If I am searching for the one nice and true. But for now I may not be searching, but only seeking fun. That's all.

Seng: And are you not wasting time then?

Teck: I have my fun. I don't ask questions I can’t answer. If there is something better and I do not know it, then it is moot to me. I can only see what’s best from what I know.

Seng: And from what you know fun is what is best for you?

Teck: Yes.

Seng: And that is why I say you are not learning, not because you are unable, but you are unwilling. Like you have said, you are not a child, and you are not an idiot.

But learning is only possible if you allow yourself to learn. And it is not like what you do in school, which is all head knowledge to be regurgitated in the exams. Rather learning is change and life changing. To learn you must be willing, and thus able, to see the world in different perspectives, and to act differently based on these new and fresh insights. If you don’t act it is as good as you not having learnt. And when you act you change.

You must be willing to accept facts, no matter how painful or 'rude' they may appear to you, and be disciplined to discriminate truths from falsehoods. Learning is not a one-way street, a filling of an empty vessel, but rather a two-way dynamic interaction between living entities, and the process changes both parties.

No amount of experience tantamount to anything if you are unwilling to learn. On the other hand, for someone already learning, he can even learn vicariously, ie from someone else' experiences. And that is how we learn from history.

But history repeats itself; because people are very prideful, such as thinking that they cannot be as dumb as their predecessors, or they prefer to hear what they want to hear, like they are free to choose, and refuses or are not willing to learn from it.

And so people experienced the same things over and over again, in continual futility. And it is just like you in your past, and in your present situation.

Every ONS is the same, the same emptiness, the same meaninglessness, and the same so-called fun. But yet you repeat it over and over again, refusing to acknowledge that no amount of sex or how skillful or fun it was, it can never be great sex. For sex is a shadow it is not the real thing. And sex is meaningful and great only with someone you love. And just holding hands with someone you love can be great sex too.

So if someone tells me he needs to try and try, and each time failing, I will be immediately suspicious that something fundamentally is amiss, and the real reason is to be looked for elsewhere and not in the trying.

What is Sex?

It will be generally agreed that the following are sexual acts on a decreasing scale of sexuality:

• anal penetration (and/or vaginal penetration in the case of straight sex)
• blowjobs
• mutual handjobs
• hugging in the nude
• hugging not in the nude
• hands-holding
• looking into each other's eyes
• masturbation
• fantasising
  

(Kissing is somehow difficult to fit into this continuum. In an ONS parties would rather be penetrated than kissed.)

Now somewhere along this continuum these acts become sex; but where this happened is seemingly a long unanswered question, from what I have read and heard.

There are possibly three categories of people in this respect.

• only penile penetration to be sex, anything else is merely 'foreplay'.

• any form of genital contact, with any other part of the body - yours or another's - through the clothes or in the nude, is sex.

• finally at the other extreme there are those who would consider even looking into the eyes as sex. And to think about sex is also sex.

But then is a doctor fondling your testicles to check for testicular cancer or fingering you to check your prostate, sex? And also it is certainly not sex if a nurse - even a gay handsome hunky male one - is to see you in the nude, and you get an erection thus being seen, although you may wished it is. And what if your male office colleague, whom you have a crush, accidentally brushed against your crotch, or you brushing his, and you felt his shape, size and position underneath? That is not sex too, although you may exploit the opportunity and let your hand linger a little longer than justified as accidental.

We must then conclude then, that sex is not entirely physical, ie it not merely physical acts. The motives or intentions behind such acts do matter too. So sex is not merely what you do, but also, if not entirely, why you do, ie you can apparently be having lunch with someone but because of what you both have in mind of each other, you both are actually having sex instead of lunch.

Sex is thus some sort of physical act - which may or may not involved the genitals - but more importantly, for which deliberate sexual arousal or pleasure is desired or intended.

And thus my view of sex is this: sex is the physical expression of love.

But I beg the question.

For what is love? and what if it is a physical expression of lust instead? And surely lusty sex is more sexy and sexual than merely love can ever arouse. And also what is the difference between love and lust?

Now, of course, there is love and there is love.

There is the love of your parents, your parents' love of their children, love between siblings, friends and neighbours, the love for your pets, your job, your cars, etc etc. And then there is the love between lovers.

So is the physical expression of love between parents and children, or between siblings sex? Most will, without hesitation, say no. But then there are such things as incest too.

And certainly it is also not sex when you expressed love for inanimate objects like your car and your hobbies (or your dildos), or to non-humans, like your cat or dog. It is also clear that bestiality is another topic, and is another type of 'sex' altogether.

Then what about physical expression of love between friends, such as handshakes, hugs and even kisses? Is it sex? Well things can become grey here I suppose, but to a larger extent they are non-erotic, ie does not and not intended to evoke sexual arousal and therefore not sex (but this is really a little circular argument).

So we are left with only the expression of love between lovers. Now what is this love that is different from all the other kinds of love?

And here I will introduce another concept, namely that of Eros: the love between parts of the same; the emotions, the sensations, the feelings, when two persons are made complete in each other. And Eros is that which propels people to seek their other part (or parts?) to complete each other.

Eros is the love one has for the flesh of your flesh, the bone of your bone, between one of the same soul.

Such a notion is not only implied and present in the bible - namely that between Adam and Eve, David and Jonathan, and also, some have argued, between Naomi and Ruth - but also articulated by Plato in one of his dialogue - Symposium - in which a speaker by the name of Aristophanes expounded this concept. Here Eros is the desire to regain wholeness, a wholeness that existed in the beginning, and the desire to be merged with the other to become whole.

A fresco taken from the north wall of the Tomb of the Diver
featuring an image of a symposium

And thus sex is the physical expression of such a love, namely Eros.

It sounds like I am stating the obvious, but it is not, for now we can make a distinction between Love and Lust, and perhaps also between 'sinless' sex and 'sinful' sex.

Lovers' love is that arising from true Eros, ie between two people that belongs to each other.

Lust on the other hand is the desire for the physical pleasures of genital stimulation, as aroused physically by the thoughts, sight, smell, touch, taste, etc of genitalia or other parts of the body, of your own, or of others, of human or otherwise, or even of inaminate objects like shoes, shorts, socks, etc, or psychologically, such as being in a position of vulnerability or surrender, or conversely of domination and of ownership, and thus you have S&M. Such stimulation do not need Eros to be stimulating. And thus you can lust and have sex with strangers and people you don't know. But these people must be of your 'types' physically or psychologically.

'Sinless' sex is the physical expression of pure genuine Eros, and sinful sex anything else.

But Eros, like everything good, is corruptible, and you may, if you are cynical, say, thoroughly corrupted too these days. And Eros corrupted is a desire to make your own what is not yours or what you think is yours. And examples of sex arising from corrupted Eros are such as rape, incest, molest, etc.

Now, if you think about it, Eros actually is gender-neutral.

It is merely the love between parts that 'belongs' to each other. The gender of these parts is merely incidental.

And also, if you think further, in an ironic twist, Eros really has nothing to do with sex. It is the sinful corruption of the world that have associated it with everything erotic and sexual.

For Eros need not be expressed physically at all. It is merely that which is the reason for the unity and oneness of parts. Whether such a oneness is expressed or not, does not change the fact of the unity and of the Eros that exist between these parts. And Eros can be expressed in ways other than physical too. The awareness of being of one mind, of one spirit, and acting as one man with the same purpose are also expressions of Eros.

Physical expression or sex is thus not necessary. It is also inadequate for the fullest expression of this oneness we feel for another. For as long as we are in this physical body, no amount of 'physical expression' can really unite us to another, even if we are biologically made for it, as between male and female. Life as it is will not allow us to be constantly together physically. And then one day we all die. Thus the only true union, or rather reunion, is in the spiritual realm, and we can be apart in space, and even in time, and in body, and yet be of one spirit, eternally.

And finally, kissing: To me it is perhaps the most sublime physical expression of two souls being one.

Appearances

From a letter ...

I wanted to conclude our chat last night.

I think it is good that you know what is reality.

I just want to add that it is also reality that you cant 'force' love.

It is also reality that gay relationship often starts in the heat of lust, and is sustained for a while by that same lust, and then reality sets in.

Some confront the reality and call a spade a spade, and both parties acknowledge the lust and call it a day, with no regrets or hangups, each go away having enjoyed the sex.

Others, perhaps overcome by guilt, or some unreasoned value or belief system, try to make it work, with or without acknowledging the initial lust as lust.

Some still continue to pretend it was 'love'. And in these cases people try to make love, in the real sense of the word, but then love cannot be made or forced.

The so-called love that is created is artificial,fake and unnatural, again in the very real sense of the word.

And so the parties hang on to the relationship on pure committment in the worst case - the fire in sex no longer burns, and if it still does, don't drive the relationship as it did intially.

And this is the nature of physical stuff. Just as food: once satiated the choicest food is no longer appealing.

And committment is literally a committment to keep up pretences.

Well true love may indeed happened in such a process of 'working it out'.

But then the chances are no different from starting anew with some stranger, for that's what the parties were, all along, even from the beginning: strangers.

And the sex, called it what you like, is still an ONS, and extended one albeit.

So gay relationships are unnatural in the sense that it is founded on a mirage, an unsustainable foundation. Whereas any relationship founded on true love, is natural and true, regardless of gender.

But then such love cannot be searched for nor created.

It is something that is given to us, from what I know, by God; and it is something that looks for you and not you to look for it.

For what you looked for can only be something you are aware of and think or know about.

But love is not something you have known until you are there. So if you looked for it and found it, it is most likely, ironically, not what you seek.

Just my thoughts ... There are more, but thats for another time ... Bye

Life's for Life

A seed lies buried, unseen, and unknown, in an desert whose sands no human foot have walked. It have been buried for ages in the hot dry sands of this forsaken place on earth.

Then came a brief thunderstorm.

It happens only once in many many years. And suddenly a flood innudates the desert.

And the seed came to life.

And frantically the seed takes root, shoots and blooms.

And not too soon.

For the flood soon subsided, the water soaked into the very thirsty dry sand, disappearing deep and fast underneath. And it is unimaginable that there was a flood just hours ago, but for the extensive field of flowers now blooming, which, even with satellite imaging, no eyes have seen.

And the sun is shining, bright, very brightly and very hot.

And the flower, its beauty seen by no human eyes, its fragrance and scent a mystery to the human race, its species unknown to science, has begun to die from the very moment it came to life.

But from apparently nowhere comes flies, beetles and ants, busy seeking the sweet food in the flowers and fertilising them in return. And by the time the sun is high the sky, the flowers are already wilting.

But the flowers have fulfilled their purpose for life. They have justified their reason for coming into being. The have created the next generation. Their seeds are fertilised. Now they are ready to die.

Come evening and the field of flowers is all but a brown mess. When the sun rises the next day, it is a desert once again, as it has been for ages, giving no suspicions of the life hidden under its lifeless sands.

But the buried seeds, the hidden life of the next generation, await, patiently, for as long as it takes, for the next thunderstorm at some unknown long future.

What is the meaning of all this?

And again what about the insect who spend months or even years in the water, or in the ground, undergoing a slow convoluted metamorphosis to become a winged insect, but only to live a week in the air, or in the tree.

And in that week it has one goal and purpose only: to mate and to mate and to mate, even every moment of its brief sex-crazed life. And then it dies. For the female it lived a while longer, just to lay its eggs, which will start the meaningless cycle all over again and perpetuating itself endlessly.

Again what is the meaning of all this?

Is this what life is about? Is life just to continue life in endless and meaningless cycles?

And we see the same thing in human lives too. All the things we do as a child and in school is to learn how to earn a living, to feed and house ourselves, and to start a family of our own.

And not that it is a bad thing; in fact it is a very good thing.

For there are such as love and sex and marriage, that give sense and meaning and an ecstacy unexperienced and unknown elsewhere in any relationship.

And then there are children. They are joy, pain, turmoil, delight, sadness and happiness all bundled into one. And raising children is so consuming that you may never have time to ask the question, what is life. Even if you do, the very question may seem meaningless and irrelevant, when you are in the midst of your happy family.

Indeed life's for life!

For is it not true, that the greatest blessing anyone can give is to give life to another being?

And such a blessing is far greater than to bless by not destroying or to preserve an existing life. And everyone is blessed with this blessing to create life!

But then this simple, natural and instinctive behaviour is not accessible and available for all. For some are born handicapped, physically or psychologically; and unlike life's propagation in the other biological species, the human process is apparently flawed. For non biological factors, like the human spirit, lusts, desires, and other longings and yearnings, interfere with the process, and as a result, you have marriage breaking up, adulterous affairs, and people just avoiding marriage altogether. Is there such a thing as adultery in the animal world? No, only humans committ adultery.

And so is life indeed for life, when there are some who cannot participate in this cycle?

We can make two conclusions.

The first is, it is just too bad, if you are precluded from this natural happy cycle. And some may explain this by evolution or some by religion, like sins in past lives, or whatever countless theories.

But whatever is said, my soul cries out against such 'explanations'. They all do not speak to my soul. They are all unjust and unjustifiable. Deep within me, my soul refuses to be pacified or consoled. I am inconsolable and unjustified, and I cry for justice.

The second however is the more natural and obvious conclusion, ie life's not just for life, and we must conclude that there must be more to life than mere life.

But what is this? What can life be if not for life itself? What's life beyond life?

If we are but another biological species, there is nothing much to argue for life beyond life. As the birds and the bees and the chimps do, so do humans.

But then we are not merely animals nor just the mindless outcome of impersonal biology, are we?

One Life

You want to be free, but you become a slave.
You want happiness, but you suffer without knowing if you get it.
You want life, but you have to give it away.
You want purpose and meaning in life, but everything is meaningless.

The monkey plays in his food, the fish swims in it,
Cats and dogs get fed by being cute,
And sparrows grow fat and numerous,
And no one knows how.

But humans must work just to get money.
We sell ourselves to exchange for money
We call boss anyone who controls our money
But when we get the money, it is not enough.

And when we reached the end,
We realised we sold everything,
And have no more time to spend the money,
To buy the freedom and the life we wanted.

And everyone walks the same road of life
We can see it is a dead end,
But the young will not listen, they have hope,
And the old got nothing to offer, they have no hope.

The happiest creatures are the animals, who did not look for it
They are born, eat, grow up, have sex, and make babies, and die
And the next generation follow after them,
an endless cycle, that is life.

On Thinking

There is time to think
And there is a time not to think
There is time when there is too much to think
But, I think, never a time when we think too much

Thinking can be hard
Thinking can be easy
Thinking can be right
Thinking can be wrong

Sometimes we think and get it wrong
Sometimes we feel and get it right
And both times we may not know why
But if we do, we think and feel better the next time.

But be it thoughts or be it feelings
What truly matters is knowledge
And we need both thoughts and intuition
To know the truth.

Life's Irony

A man was sick, very sick.

He was hospitalised and was in intensive care for 2 months. The most advanced medical treatment was given to him, and a wide array of deep medical expertise consulted from far and wide all over the world. The man recovered and was discharged after another 2 months of hospitalisation.

Then he was hit with the bills.

He had lost his job before he was hospitalised. He was not easily employable. There was no balance in his savings account and what can be paid by public funds have all been paid. And yet a huge balance remains. The hospital threatened and sued him and he declared himself bankrupt.

He had no family. And he had no friends. For he often borrowed and no one wants to know him anymore.

He was miserable.

He committed suicide.