Green and Yellow

So what if a blind man cannot tell the difference between a green thing or a yellow thing, and has no idea at all about the concept of colour?

Sure he missed something that normally sighted people has - the experience of the colourful. But so what if he is unable to have such an experience?

It is certainly a different life. But it may not be any less richer. For, as an example, he may have a keener sense of sound and touch compared to sighted people.

And life may not be any less meaningful too. It can even be more meaningful: for life is not merely about things seen but even more so, it is certainly about things unseen, such as love and beauty and joy and fulfillment, and many other things of the spirit, just as life is not merely about food, drink and sex.

For example the things written in this words are entirely spiritual. They are not about things seen or touched or heard. But yet these things may matter more for life than anything seen or touched or heard.

But unless a blind man recognises and accepts that he can never know colour, he may not look elsewhere, and may never see and take this path, and will not even begin to ask the right questions.

If he simply and simplistically just want to have what everyone have in common, and just be like anybody, and be like sighted people, and make a so-called choice to learn about colours, and in desperation even deludes himself that he have learnt it, then he will never come this way, and will never truly learn that life is more than sight and sound and touch.

And he will also never discover his true destiny.

But if he is wise and knows that not all things can be changed or for your choosing, then he may discover a new road and a new way, perhaps, only something that he alone can and must walk.

Maybe he cannot walk it alone. And maybe there is someone waiting to walk with him. But then he is blind.

But if he does come this way - alone or with a partner - then all things are equal - for in a sense everyone is blind spiritually. And then the blind man is no longer any worst off from anyone sighted, and in fact may be even better off, for sight can be a great distraction and even a deceiver.

For things of the spirit are not seen but discerned spiritually without eyes.

And then the blind may truly see, and the sighted are the ones blind.

Red and Blue

Can a blind man see?

How many times must a blind man feel a red thing and a blue thing to learn to tell what is red and what is blue?

But one who sees, does not need to feel anything red or blue to know what is red and blue. Feel is irrelevant to knowing colours.

And he does not even need to see what is maroon or mauve or magenta, but just from someone's description of these, he may already be able to recognise them the first time, if he ever sees these colours.

But a blind man will go to his grave not knowing what is red or blue.

And worst he thinks he knows, and has learnt what is red and what is blue.

But the wise blind man knows that he cannot know and will not seek in futility to tell what is red and what is blue.

Ubuntu

It is always very uplifting for me when what I think, or what I know, is affirmed for me in unexpected ways, and without me seeking for it.

And one of these of late is ubuntu.

Of course I didnt know it by that name - its an African word - but to me I have known the same thing conceptually, for some time by now, and arrived at independent of any external influences, ie nothing from what I read, or hear, or what someone tells me, but entirely from internal construction from fundamental truths that I have accumulated.

And this is the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle.

Each of us, as an individual, on our own, is like a jigsaw puzzle, oddly shaped, strangely coloured, and entirely meaningless on its own. It is only when it is fitted with other similarly odd-shaped, and strange-coloured pieces, does it make sense why we are what we are. Then our oddness disappears, and all the colours make sense. And this apply too for every other piece to whom we are attached.

But just as our purpose and meaning hinged on being part of the big picture, the big picture in turn need every single piece to be in place and not missing. It may be a million piece jigsaw puzzle, but yet every single piece is equally and crucially significant. No piece is unnecessary or redundant. Without everyone fitted in place, there is no big picture.

So thats ubuntu for me: others define who you are, just as much as you define who they are. And Bill Clinton puts it, in what I think, equivalent terms, "I am because you are."

And there is an interesting parallel here: When Moses asked God what is His name, God said, "I am I am".

The B I G Lie

This issue have been like a grain of sand in my shoe. I gnaws at me and I have to do something about it. For I am constantly irritated by the ignorant unthinking acceptance of this lie. This is not my last word but is the most coherent and comprehensive yet.

Life is about choices.

Or is it?

I say that's a big lie.

And I say choice is moot. It is irrelevant. It is an illusion.

There are two categories of choices.

The first is like a multiple choice question, where only one answer is right, or at the least some choices are better than another.

Imagine you tell a student who is preparing for an exam that the exam is in a multiple choice format, and the answer to any question is his choice.

Does that helped him?

Just because the answer is his choice, does it help him to know and to choose the right answer?

The student cannot just choose any answer can he?

And sometimes the answer is none of the above.

What really helps is to teach him to find and to know the right answer.

Telling him he has a choice sounds good but it is really a hollow, empty, and effectively a non-answer at all.

And if he knows the right answer, whether the question has multiple choice answers or not is not really important. It is entirely irrelevant.

And that illustrate what I mean by choice being moot and irrelevant.

There is no need for choices. There is only the need for knowledge and the ability to make or say that correct answer - and we are also able to say what we know is right, don't we?

Choices only matter to those who don't know the answers and having choices may at least give him some chance - ie by sheer luck - of getting some answers right. But that more likely than not will not see him passing the exam.

Choices can also be more harmful than good, eg I know of a better and more precise answer than what the choices are offering me. Think about that.

The other category of choice is where indeed any choice is the answer.

This is the situation where, for example, there is no right answer. But we must ascertain that indeed there is no right answer and any answer will do.

A possible example here is what to eat for lunch. As long as it is food any choice will do.

But if so again why the need for choices?

For have we not sometimes tell others to decide and choose for us, like telling them, "Whatever you buy, buy the same for me."

And the reason why you have to choose in this lunch example, is that the number of food sold in the hawker centre is limited.

So again choice is moot and irrelevant: there is no need for choices: if I have to eat and the only food being sold is nasi lemak, then nasi lemak will do and is good enough.

Sometimes having a surfeit of choices like twenty types of food is a wasteful, unnecessary, irrelevant, over-hyped indulgence. We may be better off without having to make choices in such inconsequential matters and just stick to nasi lemak without any choice.

And also if truly any choice will do, and whatever I choose is the answer, why must I be restricted to choose only from a limited set of possible choices?

And that also illustrates what I mean when I say choice is an illusion.

People, especially the Americans, and other people who don't think, like to portray, even define, freedom as the ability to choose. That is another facet of that big lie.

Choosing means choices, and choices are necessarily restricted and imposed upon you by circumstances outside your control: such as the political parties in authority at the moment, or such as the types and number of food you can buy in the hawker centre.

I rather see true freedom as not being restricted in any way at all, and certainly not to have my choice constrained to just choosing from a limited set of choices.

I rather have the true freedom of having the means and the ability to create my very own unique answer or solution.

I don't need choices. I just need one thing; I need to know what is this one thing I need and have the means to make this one thing happen.

I just need the freedom to say what I want, do I want, eat what I want, etc. I rather be truly free to make an answer - any answer - to any situation, than have a plethora of irrelevant choices. That to me is true freedom!

Choosing means freedom is a most insidious lie!

Politicians give you choices because then they pass the buck to you, and you cannot hold them responsible for whatever that happens to you, because - and all together now - its your choice.

So you had better lived with the outcome and don't bother them with your misery. That is the meaning of choice politically, and we see it happen all the time, eg in the work place.

And it is most prevalent when people who ought to be responsible for you, don't know what is best for you; and instead of determining the best thing for you, give you a set of limited and half-baked options and pass the buck of being responsible for the outcome to you. And your very act of choosing seemingly also imply that you have assume this responsibility for yourself, but which was morally theirs and never transferrable.

So be especially wary when someone tells you, "It's your choice." It means they do not know what's best for you and that you ought not to bother them should it turn out bad for you.

And finally a matter closer to heart. Let me tell you a story about money.

There was a guy, recently working, and has accumulated some balance in his bank, more than he ever had all his life.

Being prudent he wants to make this money grow, at least faster than merely deposited in the bank. And also he has heard a bit of such buzzwords as financial management, financial goals, risk profiles etc etc. And so he starting asking around and started reading, and also some of his friends are in this business of managing other people's money.

And so he got to know such an agent. And the agent said a lot of things, and a lot of ifs and buts too. But the whole thing boils down to choosing between three Funds: Fund A gives you 5% return, Fund B gives you 2% return, and Fund C at the moment is returning 8%.

The agent told him that it is his choice.

But really its a no brainer, right? You can choose with your eyes closed, right?

So he invested in Fund C.

Three months later Fund C went down -10%, Fund B barely moved at 2%, and Fund A returned 10%.

But it was his choice. He cannot blame anyone, especially his agent, and must accept it.

But it made a mockery to his stated goal of financial growth and so on, and all his time and effort spent listening to the agent, and toiling mentally with all the figures and jargon, a futility.

He could have done better doing nothing and leaving the money in the bank and used the time and effort to do more important things. (But again he may not, but just waste it away in another manner.)

On the other hand, he has now taken on a long term perspective.

But really is there any choice?

It is again another no brainer, given what has happened. And also why should things be any different 6 months out, a year out, or even 10 years out? Things are entirely out of his control. His choice makes no difference whatsoever to reality.

And also unbeknownst to both he and his agent, there was Fund D that performed +20% over the same period, and Fund E that gave a guaranteed 8% return.

Maybe he has to choose a better agent next time. But where are these? Who are they? What he knows is what he knows, and what he doesn't he don't.

And of course there may also be Fund F and Fund G and Fund H, etc etc. Some of them are yet to be created or constructed, just because nobody asked for them, for they are customised, specially tailored products.

Then at the same time there was another person. This person has a very strict father. And the father didn't allow him to manage his own funds. The father compel this guy to entrust all his monies to the father, and the father only gives out a regular allowance. This guy had no choice. But 3 months later, the father-managed funds grew 50%.

So what is the morale of this story?

You may object immediately that this is unreal. Such a story is a fairy tale. It does not happen in real life.

Actually that is a valid and acceptable objection.

For in the real world where is there such a father who dare impose his will on his son, and to curtail his son's freedom. And also even if there is one who dares to do so, and has a son who is meek enough to comply, why should just being such a father makes him a better fund manager than other professional fund managers, and that he knows more than those who make a living from selling funds to people?

Where can you find a father that is so wise and knowledgeable that you can indeed entrust your monies entirely and completely to him and just to live on allowances that he doled out?

There are possibilities certainly, like the father owning a stock brokering firm, or George Soros himself. I do in fact know of an owner of a stock brokering firm in Singapore, but for him to be my father is another matter altogether. So the chances of you or anyone having such father is probably less probable than winning Toto, or the earth being hit by an asteroid in the next year.

So for the ordinary mortal, such are the stuff of fairy tales.

But on the other hand, you cannot deny that Funds going up and down are not a reality.

In fact every funds have it in fine print, that past performances are no guarantee for future ones. Yet everyone look at past performances to decide which is the "better" fund. In part there is no choice about it - and there is more than a tinge of irony here - for no one knows the future. And that is really why people give you choices: you have no choice but to choose.

Your greater need are thus not choices but more to know how to seek that one fund, or some other means and instrument, that will meet your financial goals and objectives, or that person who knows.

But then who knows? There will be no one who dare to tell you to invest in a specific and particular fund or funds. It may be -5% last year, but in 10 years it will be +1500%. Who knows? Not unless he or you have a time machine and have gone into the future and seen what things will be like.

So what is the alternative to this lack of knowledge?

We have all heard it before: so, all together now ...

"Its Your Choice!"

Reaching God

It is oft said that there are many ways to God, but it is apparently unknown that religion is certainly not the way.

Faith, Unfaithfulness and Faithlessness

Faith is being assured of a true thing, that you can believe it, even to depend and act on it.

Faith is belief put into action.

It is like being assured that a parachute works and you are willing to and indeed do jump off aircraft with merely a parachute.

Unfaithfulness is being assured too, but seemingly so only, as you would not make that leap.

Faithlessness is not even believing in such a thing as a parachute.

Of unfaithfulness and faithlessness, the former is the more grievous sin.

In some ways it is better not to know, then to know and not believe. You are accountable for all that you know.

But you may think you know. And then there are also different types of faith.

Some believe for one reason or another - or none at all other than their own strength of belief - that they can fly and need no parachute, for example.

And some do indeed are so assured as to jump off aircraft without parachutes. Or fly aircraft into buildings.

But there are truths. No amount of self-will, or self-belief, can make gravity go away for instance.

If something is not, and never will be, the strength of your belief or persistence of your will, will not change anything. In fact they are entirely irrelevant.

Self belief can easily be self-delusion. And they are all kinds of false faith.

True faith is not founded upon your capability of belief or of its strength thereof. Rather it is knowledge of the truth and acting upon it.

And if the truth be true indeed, then faith leads to more knowledge and more knowledge to more faith, and thus faith grows from faith to faith.

It is like seeing a chair in a room. If by believing it, you sit in it, then you will come to know of something as comfort, the very essence of a chair; for a chair is not about four legs and so on, but of the restfulness that its gives.

And all these you cannot comprehend by merely being convinced, no matter how strongly, of the mere concept of thing with four legs called a chair.

And remaining aloof and detached will evidenced itself as unfaithfulness when you need rest but you yet refuse to sit in the chair.

The Boss is Right

The boss is right.
And it seems we are wired for this.
And it may well be true.
But the trouble is we may not know
who is the right boss.

Also we prefer certainty and stability
over uncertainty and change.
Again it is seemingly something natural in us.
And again there may be nothing wrong,
but in fact even a right thing to cling to the certain.
But the trouble is we just cling to anything,
even something of our own creation.

What the boss says is true.
And he has the resources, authority and influence to make it so.
And we run the peril of being denied resources if we disagree,
and be compelled or persuaded to agree.
But the trouble is no boss has any monopoly on what is true.

Why Say So

Why say come to church?

Why not be the church wherever and whenever you are, for wherever and whenever two or three are gathered in God' s name there is God in your midst, and you and the Holy Spirit are two.

Why say Lord I submit my plans to you?

Why not fear the Lord and surrender yourself to his plans for you, even if you do not know and cannot see what it is. You may have planned to save your money for that investment opportunity you can see coming soon, but there is your neighbour, here and now, who needs that money for his medical bills, and we all know that Jesus said love your neighbour.

Why say God is love, when you can love and show that God is.

Snippets

Fortune Tellers: Saw two of them asking people to have their fortune read during lunch at a coffee shop. If they can tell others' fortunes, could they not foretell their own, and know who needs fortune telling, for isnt such where their own fortunes lie?

Truth: It is seemingly politically incorrect now to say that there is absolute truth, or even that there are right and wrong things, for to say so implies there are also absolute lies, and it makes some to be liars and some to be believers of such lies, and that make these people unhappy, and it is disrespectful and insensitive to make people unhappy.

Idolatry: People say they go to church to worship God, but really they go to church to hear things that make them feel good and exalted, ie they seeked to be worshipped instead.

Unfaithfulness and Faithlessness: The former knows the truth but do not conform to it, the latter don't believe in such as truth.

Hypocrisy

" ... They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him." [Matt 27:30-31]

What would a peaceable man do if he is insulted?

Destroy? Burn? Kill?

Are we what we do, and not what we - and others - say we are?

And is the insult really an insult?

For is not the current behaviour simply proving that the insults are not, but rather truths?

Even if it is truly insulting, is the mad fury, the blind, unmitigated and rampant violence and terror, ever an appropriate response?

For even if justice is based on an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the most that is justifiable - in any circumstances - is to trade insults for the perceived ones: a hurt feeling for a hurt feeling.

And is any insult so injurious and damaging, that any and every act is justifiable?

It is beyond imagination to think that riots, destruction and killing - accidentally or otherwise - are appropriate or proportional, the usual measures of just responses.

To be sure feelings are important, and people can and will die for what they feel. Feelings can move you to move mountains and swim oceans, and it is oft quoted that a scorned woman's fury is unknown in hell. But does not such willingness to wreck destruction, and even to die, for a dead man's image and name, borders on idolatry itself, something supposedly abhorred by these rioters?

Is it insulting to call someone hypocrite?

Of course I can lie or I can be wrong and mistaken. But what if it is true, that you are indeed one? Can a truth ever be insulting?

Sure I can say it differently, with or without considerations for your sensitivities, and again intentional or not. Your feelings may be hurt, but that's a different question from me being insulting.

I can speak kindly but you feel hurt, and conversely, I can intentionally speak to hurt, but you are entirely indifferent.

For if I speak or do things to you that are beneath your position or your stature does it diminish or change whatever your position or stature may be? If someone calls me a pig in anger, I can only find it amusing, and, to me, reveals his wits, or lack thereof.

And if my insult is based on a lie, is not the best response to expose my lie, especially if you demonstrate in your acts, peaceably, peacefully and incontrovertibly, that I am a liar, and not merely rant and rage and shout at me as a liar?

But if it is not a lie, even if my intention is to hurt your feelings, is it not for your good to know that the emperor has no clothes?

Or you rather continue in the comfort of your delusionary clothes, even to deny and forcibly and furiously suppress my right to say what I see and think?

Sure no rights are absolute. And my freedom to choose is curtailed to the extent it affects someone else's choices and being.

But should there ever be any restraint on truth itself? Or would you rather I not speak what I think and know to be true, but rather always concur, or at the least pretend to concur, with what to me is a lie or an untruth?

We, as fallible humans, are always vulnerable and susceptible to be wrong, and to believe a lie, and therefore should we not always welcome to be corrected and not to fall into a lie?

But on the other hand, if someone calls us a liar, because we are one, and he has found that out, then it will be our great concern that he holds such knowledge, ie if we want to continue to lie.

And then we are compelled to take appropriate actions to prevent and discourage him, and others, from knowing that truth. And certainly strong and vigorous actions, and not merely retort in words - or silence - are called for. And the more vigorous and more violent the response is, the more the better to deter and discourage, if not to entirely dispel, the knowledge of truth.

And so wisdom - or its lack - is proven by her actions.

On Miracles

Why are there miracles?

Simply put, miracles are a badge of authority.

It is like a policeman's badge being evidence that he is empowered by the law to enforce it. For as anyone can impersonate a policeman, so can anyone, claim to come in the name of Jesus. And there are many who easily proclaim, I do this and that, or say this and that, in the name of Jesus.

But having said that I must immediately add that such a miraculous badge is not really necessary. And this is so as it can be recognised, sooner or later, in one way or another, whether someone is truly doing or speaking on behalf of God, or for himself.

There is a similar analogy in the policeman's world. The law of the land is the law of the land. I don't have to be a policeman to tell you that you are breaking the law. And in fact the law empowers ordinary citizens to make arrest, namely citizen's arrest, or you can simple call the police. So I don't really need the badge to enforce the law on anyone, ie if I want to.

So anyone can truly do and speak on God's behalf without having to perform miracles. The question really is not of badges but of true knowledge of God and of a heart to do and speak for him.

Now the reason why such miraculous badges are not necessary is threefold.

Firstly badges can be faked. And this true certainly of policeman badges, of identity cards, and of passports, etc.

In the spiritual world, the devil have some power to do supernatural things too.

It is mentioned in prophetic books of the bible that in the end days, by miraculous signs and wonders, the devil will lead the lost astrayed.

And in the other direction in time, in history, when Moses went up to the Pharaoh to ask him to let his people go, Pharaoh demanded to know upon what authority is such a demand made.

And as you may know, Moses called upon a series of miraculous signs and wonders. But the first few, or just the first one, namely Moses changing his staff into a snake, was duplicated by Pharaoh's magicians.

Secondly it is a sign of insufficient faith to need a miracle to believe.

God have arrange so that you can know who is true and who is the liar, and who truly comes in Jesus' name and those who simple say so, from already existing human and humanly perceivably signs.

So really to need a miracle to believe is actually a sign of disbelief. It is akin to testing God, ie an attitude that says, if you say you are so and so, do this and that to prove to us, you are indeed who you are. And this testing attitude is betrayed especially when the test is a seemingly impossible one.

An example is when some people brought a man with a withered arm to Jesus on Sabbath day. Now the Sabbath day is a day when no one is supposed to work. And healing is work. So the people were trying to put Jesus in a catch-22 situation. Heal and break the law, don't heal and you cannot prove yourself. Jesus healed nonetheless saying that the law is not above compassion and love.

Back to the policeman example, do I really need me to show you a badge when I tell you that you are breaking the law? In fact the badge is entirely irrelevant. You have broken the law, and you know it yourself, without even me telling you, even far less the need for me to show you any badge.

So really to ask for a miracle is just an excuse for disbelieving.

And thirdly when you have seen the miracle, and upon that you said you believe, you are actually believing the miracle rather than God.

And the real reason for belief is that you covet the miraculous effects, rather belief in God.

And many prayers for healing and prosperity fall into this category.

And such people will go to any god or gods or goddesses, the moment they hear that these can give them their desired miracles, eg lottery numbers.

And I want to tell you about my friend here. He attends a church which is overtly very strict and regimented in obeying God's laws, for example the abhorrence of idolatry. And to him putting up a Christmas tree for Christmas is idolatry. But then he buys 4D, bets on English Premier League, and so on, he wins. And soon, he bought a feng-shui sculpture, some miniature water fountain, and placed it in the house.

Now it is not so much the sculpture or that it is feng-shui inspired that made it an idol, but it is the attitude and reason for installing it, namely that he believes it will bring him good luck. That is idolatory, to turn away from God and to put your trust and hope in something else.

But it escapes himself entirely, intentionally or otherwise, seemingly religious though he is.

And then I want to tell you about my late friend Mr. Tan as another example.

You may remember Mr. Tan. He has died, after many years of leukemia, for about half a year to date. His mother became a Christian. But really she was not as much seeking God as wanting Mr. Tan healed. And as all mothers do, they do anything for their son, even believing God, if that is what it takes.

And then Mr. Tan has a friend that works with him in the car dealing business. This friend told Mr. Tan why don't he go over to his god, some Tua Pek Kong derivative or other I think, since the Christian god is apparently not working.

And that is really the worst sort of testimony for a Christian. For instead of testifying that you believe because you know God and wants to do his will, you are instead showing the world that you believe God for his goodies. Your objective is the goodies. Who delivers the goodies may be a secondary thing.

Are you saying there are no more miracles today?

Well Mr. Tan died, despite the tons of so-called prayers prayed. But I am not saying no.

Like I said Jesus came not to remove poverty or sickness and diseases. He certainly didn't. And we have bird flu constantly threatening the world today. And he certainly didn't make the poor rich, but rather tells the rich to be poor.

But yet he did healed the sick in some cases here and there. To be sure some of them are a mark and demonstration of who he is, his identification badge.

But there were times he did not want to heal, such as the paralytic brought down to him through the hole in the roof. And yet at times he told those he healed not to talk about it. But then they did precisely the contrary and soon the whole towns were coming out to seek Jesus. But they come to seek to feed their stomachs. The seek a miracle maker and not God. They are seeking food for their stomachs and not to be reconciled to God. (See John 6)

So there may be miracles yet out of God's compassion.

But there will also be miracles of judgement, ie by very act of the miracle, God condemned their disbelief.

It will be like the case when the young nation of Israel have just left Egypt and was marching in the desert. God send down food, called manna, everyday from heaven, but they complained and said that back in Egypt they had meat.

And so God heard them. And he caused a wind to blow quails to land in the Israelites' camp. Israel ate meat, and then they died.

So should someone pray for a miracle or not? Pray, as in all prayers, in accordance to the will of God.

I am sure you are aware that anytime, anyone from some church is hospitalised, tons of SMSes will immediately flood the airwaves, asking the receipients to pray for the one sick, especially if the latter is dying.

Now surely everyone will die, one day, sooner or later, anticipated or not, and whether you are ready or not. Will praying for someone dying to live always work? Certainly not. Mr. Tan died. Some will die and maybe some will yet live, maybe for a little longer. But whether he, or even the apparently healthy, lives or die, is all in God's hand.

So if you are to ask God not to take his life this time, then you had better know why is should not be this time and in this manner. And how do you know that? For that you have to know God and be able to hear him. That is the wise way.

And even so, God may keep silent.

But then most would just blindly and mechanically go through the motions of praying, and will utter the usual words, the magic formula, the mantra - and maybe conduct some ritualistic acts with the arms or something else - just like the pastor who visited my mum in hospital.

Why We Pray What We Pray

An excerpt:

One of her visitors asked some pastor from a recently established church to come and pray for her. I happened to be there when the pastor came. And I wont go into details what he said and so on but just to tell you what is left in me after that.

And that is his gospel is the presently highly popular one, namely the wealth and health gospel, or the "name it, claim it" gospel. I talked about this some time back, in relation to testing God. And so he was claiming in Jesus name that my mum will be healed and so on, and suffer no pain, etc etc. It is kind of standard mantra that people utter at hospitals' bedside.

What's new is my realisation why people pray this way.

And what's that?

The poor and the sick will always be with us. When Jesus was on earth he did not go about to eradicate poverty or sickness. Instead he preached love. He did heal a few, because of his compassion - for example the case of the people hacking a hole in the roof to lower a paraplegic to a spot where Jesus can touch him - but that was not his primary intention.

Instead the poor and sick were given to us to love.

But we disdain such burdens, especially the burden to love. And I am sure you have felt such burdens before, either due to relationships, social customs or commitments. It is our natural self to want to be unburdened, especially that to love.

And so we pray, in seemingly caring language, that the sick be healed and the poor be blessed with work and lottery earnings and so on. But really they are praying for themselves. For if the poor can feed himself and the sick can walk, then you can love without need to demonstrate it, but just to say it, and without even your conscience accusing you of hypocrisy.

To pray for the sick to recover is really not love for the sick but to remove from yourself the obligation to love and care. It is easy to claim this and that in Jesus name, in a moment and to walk away from it, but it is not easy to stay, to love and to care, continually day after day, in silence, and in pain, and even unappreciated.

This is the most cynical view I've heard so far.

It may be so, but can you deny that it is not true? And actually this is also the short answer to why there is the poor.

The Crow

God made the crow.

Why?

The crow is raucous, loud, and unpleasant - to the eye, the ears and the mind - having a beak that seems disproportionately large, coloured entirely in an un-admirable black, and with a disgusting habit of eating carrion and other waste.

On the other hand there is the eagle, a soaring piece of perfection, of elegance, precision and efficiency. But the crow even dare to challenge the eagle in the skies.

I have seen a crow go up to a gliding circling eagle cawing loudly, noisily, and ill-temperedly. The eagle remains nonchalant, circling unaffected. But the crow persists, even though it lacks the eagle's stamina, needing to come down and rest on some high perch periodically. And it keeps harassing the eagle, till it moves out of that space in the skies.

True there is a role and place and necessity for carrion feeders in Nature. But even the vultures, equally disgusting in their habits, have some beauty yet in their appearance and design.

That seems totally absent in the crow, except that it is intelligent. It has been demonstrated that the crow can acquire on its own, without training, useful behaviour and abilities, and to make and use tools. The latter was once thought to be what defines humans.

So why did God, whose works are perfect in beauty, make a crow?

The obvious underlying analogical question is why does a good and loving God create Satan and evil? Maybe evil is necessary to judge evil and excute evil on evil, but thats a different matter from a necessary evil: it begs the question why is there an evil to be judged at all.

But even as God is true, there is certainly wisdom in God's idea of the crow, not least by faith in God.

But I can think of only one thing at the moment.

And this is that beauty is not solely of, nor even about, physical appearances. The intelligence in the crow cause us to pause, to relook and rethink about this bird, and ponder on its Creator who made it, and not think it ugly just because it appear so. And the crow must be good and perfect and beautiful too, for God is its creator, but in a way not immediate and apparent to us humans.

The Rich and the Poor

A response to some website:

When people talk about rich and poor it is usually about money, in its various forms, from cash, assets, etc, and also access to these.

But money is not the end in itself. It is not the measure of what rich is.

For money is but a means to an end, which in the final analysis is security and a sense of control particularly of the future. If you have money you know you can get food and shelter, and all other material comforts in life, necessary or otherwise, and you rest in that assurance. And with money you can plan, and thus attain a sense of control or security, into some future, like your next holiday, or your children’s education, etc etc.

If I do not know when and how my next meal is coming from, does it make sense to appreciate the beauty in a flower or to dwell on why there is evil in the world?

So the rich is the one who is not anxious about his food and drink tomorrow, or the day after, and is not constantly and totally preoccupied with mere survival, and is able to be and become what is human and spiritual, to pursue beauty, love and truth, for example.

And such peace, assurance, and ascent from mere survival is what rich is. (And no, it is not to be happy. It is easy to be happy, just be foolish.)

And the source of such confidence and assurance need not be money. It can be God too. But some put their trust in money.

Admittedly it is easier to trust what you have in your pocket or bank account then to walk into the desert daily to collect just a day’s worth of manna. But such is the walk of faith.

And even if you are collecting manna daily you may yet faced the temptation to collect more than a day’s worth, or to test God, by yearnng and even demanding meat instead of mere manna. And these are those who have forgotten or do not know that man shall not live on bread alone.

And finally I do not see many taking Jesus’ word literally concerning the rich selling all he has to give to the poor and then following after Jesus, do we? If there are more such truly heeding Jesus, then “fighting poverty” is as natural as taking your next breathe.

And as Jesus said, we shall always have the poor. For God have made both the rich and the poor.

He made them for each other: the poor to receive from the rich, giving thanks to God, and the rich to give to the poor, learning to trust God, the source of all things, and not on money; and also that all will know that we need each other, as much as we need God.

Assuredly God loves us, each and every individual, but only we can love each other.

And God is fair, for life is NOT about being rich or poor. It is about knowing God.

And both rich and poor CAN know God, the poor perhaps being in a better position than the rich, even as it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for the rich to go to heaven.