Of Thoughts, Letters & Pictures

I Was in North Korea

2012-01-09T23:04:00.006+08:00

It was a dream.

And it was with a team. But for what mission I did not know. And neither did I know how we got into the country.

And as with all dreams, various incongruous threads started and ended abruptly, sometimes triggered by something in the dream itself, or, in this instance, my own mind - somehow aware of itself dreaming - directing it with seemingly random thoughts or motifs that popped into my supposedly sleeping mind.

The North Korea I dreamt was very cold and snow was falling hard, and there was a great famine in the land. And it was in the reign of the new Young Leader.

North Korean mourners are obscured by heavy snow on Dec. 22, 2011.

In one thread I saw a starving woman carrying in her arms a sick baby with wiry white long hair and greenish skin tones. (I remembered my mind saying it must have white wiry long hair and so it was.)

A female member of my team approached her and the baby vomited. There were what seemed to be pieces of bread and other orangey macaroni-looking bits in the vomit (and now also I know for sure dreams are in colour). Then a starving man approached the vomit looking for food but turned away and himself started vomiting instead.

Then the team was in some room, perhaps of a disused school, together with other North Korean dissidents, and we were all sitting or sleeping on the floor. It felt like a detention centre, and it continued to snow heavily outside.

I then, walking knee deep in the snow, approached some guard - or was I trying to escape? - and I told the guard, "The Rangers are coming." That apparently scared the guard and the soldiers starting deserting their posts. And I was wondering how they knew what Rangers I was talking about.

Then I became more awake than dreaming, but I - consciously? - wanted the dream to go on, but it disintegrated into absurdity and I went back to sleep, or, perhaps, so I thought.

Let My People Go: Of Moses, Jesus and the Mysterious Prostitute

2011-02-12T09:29:00.025+08:00

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites.
[Deu 18:15]

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls then came and spoke to me, saying, Come with me! I will show you the doom (sentence, judgment) of the great harlot (idolatress) who is seated on many waters, with whom the rulers of the earth have joined in prostitution (idolatry) and with the wine of whose immorality (idolatry) the inhabitants of the earth have become intoxicated.

And [the angel] bore me away [rapt] in the Spirit into a desert (wilderness), and I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast that was all covered with blasphemous titles (names), and he had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was robed in purple and scarlet and bedecked with gold, precious stones, and pearls, [and she was] holding in her hand a golden cup full of the accursed offenses and the filth of her lewdness and vice.

And on her forehead there was inscribed a name of mystery [with a secret symbolic meaning]: Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes (idolatresses) and of the filth and atrocities and abominations of the earth.
[Rev 17:1-5, Amplified Bible]

Moses was rejected by his people, and so was Jesus; Moses returned from outside Egypt to save his people, and so too will Jesus return one day to Earth to save his people.

And Moses told the Pharaoh, "Let my people go."

But to whom shall Jesus make such a demand?

Of course to the one who is keeping his people in bondage and slavery. Not so obvious however is who this one is, and what is the nature of this slavery.

The simplistic view is that this one is Satan, and the people are in bondage to "sin", ie it is Satan who is causing, even compelling, us to "sin", and if Satan's compulsion on the people is broken then the people will no longer sin, and are then free. But is this so?

For firstly it is not Satan that causes you to sin. Satan may whisper in your ears and make you see in your mind eyes to tempt you, but unless you are tempted by such and thereafter act to those ends, you have not sin, eg unless you are a smoker, imagining or seeing a cigarette is no temptation to you, and no sin certainly too.

... each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
[Jam 1:14,15]

So at the root of sin are our "own evil desires", and not whatever outside us.

Eve would not have sinned, if to be like God, to know good from evil, was not tempting to her (and this was even before the Fall) but it was - and I suppose for all of mankind too - and the rest is history.

Secondly sin is the breaking of law, and strictly speaking under the covenant of grace there is no law, and we are already free from sin, ie Jesus' death on the cross have set us free - by the demonstration of the power of the grace of God (and for the Jews, the fulfillment of the Law) - and we need not wait for Jesus' return to be so set free. Death no longer enslaves us: O Death where is your victory?! [1 Cor 15]

If there is a "law" for the free - a contradiction of sorts, for with any law there must be punitive measures to enforce compliance, which is ultimately death - it is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbour as yourself. To those free this is not a law, but just part of the essence of being free, like breathing is for those alive, a natural thing, even as having two arms, a left and a right arm, is natural to being a man, or that the offspring of a kangaroo is also a kangaroo. So if you are free, you love, naturally, for God is love.

But many strive to keep the above as "law" or to seem so.

For not a little will put strenuous effort to fulfil some minutiae of the Mosaic law - even if these be irrelevant or inapplicable per se - but hardly noticed their neighbours, if any, let alone think about their needs. The Pharisees have always been around, even today.

And free men returned themselves to slavery, unto themselves and their desires, and not unto God, even as the Israelites complained and desired to return to Egypt after the Pharaoh have let them go.

And thirdly, far many more love money, truly.

You cannot serve both God and Money at the same time, for no man can serve two Masters, and the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, even the evil desires within us.

So why do so many love money?

OK sure it is indispensable, particularly in a modern economy, where barter is no longer practical and then there is not much of value that a pair of hands can toiled into being, eg the garbage scavengers in Lagos, Manila, etc. And to depend on love gifts is just as impractical: deemed parasitic, irresponsible and unethical, even to those who claim to love you. Finally manna from heaven have stopped falling to earth a long long time ago.

And so you need money even to merely survive, to subsist, to live from day to day. But with money you need not stop there, you can have more than just bread for food, maybe have a toy or two to keep yourself amused, throw in a holiday once in a while too, and even start to dream; and with just your own two hands, work to make that dream true.

Therefore you are now free from the limitations of your ownself, and no need to be slavishly dependent on others too. And you give thanks to God, or god or gods, for your blessings and pray that he or they or whatever helped you on your way to attain your dreams.

It should be obvious now that you cannot serve God and Money at the same time. With the latter you feel yourself empowered and in control of your own destiny, and God is optional; if you opt for God it is only to enlist his help, blessings, protection, to advantage yourself in your handiwork, etc, but not to subject yourself to him as Master.

And there is no need for faith but only for that in other's confidence in money or need for such confidence, as evidenced in the recent global financial crisis and in the measures to prop the euro, etc.

And the spirit of man is emboldened within himself, even to see and act as if he is god himself - even as being like God tempted Eve - and nothing he plans to do will be impossible, even as the people in the ancient times came together to build the Tower of Babel.

And this is the Mysterious Prostitute: namely the spirit of man, the spirit of idolatory within him to worship himself, and be his own god. And this Prostitue rides the scarlet Beast and is seated on many waters, the latter being angelically interpreted as "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages", ie the whole world. And the scarlet Beast is the spirit of the nations of the world, driven by the same spirit, the Prostitute.

Thus this is the global power, namely the spirit of man, the spirit of prostitution and idolatory, to which Jesus will say, "Let my people go." It is obvious too that this bondage is very strong, far stronger than the physical bondage Pharaoh exerted over the Hebrew slaves.

As an analogy, and twisting the Pharaoh's tale, imagine Moses asking the Pharaoh not to let the Hebrew people go, but instead to surrender his Pharaohship and to let himself go to another land which is far greater than the Egypt he rules but one where he is not king.

For the spirit of man must surrender his own spirit, for only than can the spirit of man be joined with the spirit of Christ, even as the Bride is married to the Bridegroom, to become the Holy City, the new Jerusalem. Until then it is Babylon, the Harlot.

PS: This article was triggered by the fall of Pharaoh Mubarak on 11 Feb 2011 (11022011) and a protester on BBC News, an Egyptian Christian, thanking Moses for the phrase, "Let my people go."

The End of the World

2010-03-30T18:29:00.014+08:00

Earthrise seen from the Moon during Apollo 11

Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
[Rev 1:7]

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.

So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

[Matt 24:42-44]

And so the end of the world will not happen on 21 Dec 2012.

What is revealed and what is known is that the end will happen at a time most unexpected.

And that can possibly be when the world is supremely confident, greatly assured in its knowledge and collective abilities, and all the peoples in the world are utterly convinced that humankind's fate and destiny are entirely in its own hands, each individual having the means and abilities to literally make the future to be whatever each individual or community wants it to be for itself.

It is conceivable then, in such a day, that "all the peoples of the earth will mourn", instead of rejoicing, when they see him who was pierced descending from the clouds.

So also then the end will not come when there are massive earthquakes here and there, disasters triggered by extreme weather and climatic changes, or major wars and conflicts and massive sufferings of humankind in the world from poverty or famine or diseases or plaques like SARS, H5N1, etc. For in such times God is more likely remembered and eagerly awaited, and many, if not all, will rejoice if God returns to end all their sufferings and miseries and pain.

But Jesus will return when he is most unexpected, even unwelcomed.

A possible scenario of such a state of unwelcome, could be when all the nations of the world are at peace, for a significant duration; when all nations have unite, able to settle differences without wars and bloodshed, and instead able to cooperate and launch grand and massive international and global projects, such as never before attempted, even since Babel, even to control the weather and climate, and harness the power and energy of earthquakes and hurricanes, and all the people of the world prosperous.

Then humankind must also overcome one final and fundamental vulnerability, the certain conclusion and termination of all mankind and life on earth as we have always and only known, namely the sun. And this will happen, when the sun runs out of fuel, and even way before that, when the sun inflates to become a red giant, scorching and melting all of earth to barren molten rock.

To overcome this certainty of demise, humankind must be able to travel to other places in the universe, ie undertake inter solar and inter galactic travel, and to be able to colonise on other planets and moons or asteriods and other rocky inter stellar debris, even to recreate an environment for the continuation of an earthly or earth-like livelihood, with all its plants, animals, fishes and birds.

And certainly before that, intra solar system travel shall become as common place as taking the subway downtown.

Earth shall also no longer be threathened by asteriods impact. Instead humans will be able to control and manoeuvre asteriods, to change their trajectories, using the very material of these rocks themselves as fuel, and even to use them as vehicles for travel within the solar system and elsewhere.

The unified international space command will have a fleet of scouting autonomous robots to survey all the rocks in the asteroid belt, and elsewhere. And there is also a fleet of autonomous robots to build initial installations, so that humans, and other robots, can land on them subsequently, to exploit these asteriods for various purposes, from manufacturing, to energy, to travel, and even to become extraterrestrial colonies for the by-then much overcrowded earth. These fleets of scouting and colonies construction robots will all be based on the Moon, Mars, and some of Saturn's moons.

But of course all these sounds very much science fiction, at least for the moment. For sure, we need to discover additional fundamental science - and medical and bioengineering knowledge - to perform practical inter galactic travel, such as worm holes or other exotic forms of manipulating the fabric of the universe, if such are correct notions then.

On the other hand it is only very recent that we had Newton, and then only a few centuries later, Einstein. And knowledge growth, in this Internet age, is explosive and exponential. The next fundamental discoveries may already be on the threshold of happening, and then other discoveries to happen soon thereafter at an accelerating pace, at intervals of decades instead of centuries, and then in years, and so on, so much so that indeed the future painted above can happen in a blink of an eye; and some alive today may experience intra solar travel within their lifetimes. And if understanding gravity is like knowing the mind of God, as Einstein puts it, then we must also be closer to knowing God's mind then at any other time.

Of course it may not happen at all, not as painted above in any case.

But the point is made: namely that the signs to watch for of the imminent end is not in the wars, famine and so on, as popularly interpreted in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - these are but awakening calls for those whose ears can hear and eyes can see - but rather, ironically, more in the realisation of the longed-for and much desired peace, unity, harmony, and utopia of all the earth, in the flowering and blossoming of the full potential of collective mankind in all his knowledge and capabilities, and when Man comes close to the perfection of God, in whose image, Man is. And then the end will come.

And of course no prediction of an exact date and time of the end is true, never ever.

Ecological Hypocrisy

2009-07-15T12:16:00.003+08:00

A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
[Pro 12:10]

If you care for the earth, the trees and all the animals within it, should you not care more for humankind itself?

For man were given dominion over the earth and all things in it, but the highest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself, the one whom God deemed worthy enough to die for.

If we truly love our neighbour need the poor go kill elephants for their tusks for some mere dollars?

And if the rich are not worshipping money, is there a need to devastate entire forests just to make paper?

And then if you truly are able to care for something that is not yours, do you not think God care far far more for what is his?

Fire from the Heavens

2009-05-30T12:38:00.003+08:00

And he (the Beast from the Earth, the False Prophet) performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.
[Rev 13:13]

" ... scientists will use the world's most powerful laser to create 192 separate beams of light that will be directed at a bead of frozen hydrogen in a violent burst lasting five billionths of a second. Each fuel pellet measures just two millimetres across but costs around $40,000, because they must be perfectly spherical to ensure they collapse properly when the laser light strikes.

The intense beams produce a powerful shockwave that crunches the fuel pellet at a million miles an hour, generating temperatures of around 100,000,000C. Under such extreme conditions, which are found only in the core of stars, the hydrogen atoms will fuse, producing helium and vast amounts of energy."

From California fires up laser fusion machine

The Multi-Headed Multi-Horned Beast

2009-04-28T14:46:00.002+08:00

Empires, Kingdoms and Nations through the Ages

Long Term Investments in Coconuts

2009-02-16T14:58:00.009+08:00

I am a farmer.

I plant coconut trees and sell its fruits at the local market.

I am thinking about opening a new grove to plant more coconut trees.

It costs me $1000 to clear up the area, buy new seedlings and plant them. It costs me $250 a year to tend them till they bear fruit which is about 5 years time. The grove can supply me 1000 nuts a year, and I can sell them for $1 each. I think I can sell 80% of the nuts each year. The trees are fruitful for 5 years. And each year I pay a rent of $150 for the grove.

Should I make this long term investment?

The total costs over 10 years are $5000 and I get in return $4000. And so I make less money than I spend over the 10 years.

Or so as I see them now.

I can be wrong, even very wrong, for I do not know all things.

In fact I may not know anything at all.

There is a chance, however, that I may be right in some things.

But probability can be an entirely irrelevant thing.

A small chance may not happen too often, but it can; and when it does, all that have happened in the past may be rendered obsolete, your plans meaningless, and you, a fool. As is quoted more often than believed, history is no predictor of the future.

For example, year after year, coconut trees grow from my sandy soil near the beach, but one day an earthquake happened somewhere faraway in the world, some glaciers melted, and my island home is submerged and gone forever. Or maybe one day a coconut seedling infestation occurs and no more coconuts can grow on my island.

You may say that is OK, as long as the continuity of things remains typical and does not happen tomorrow when I am making plans and planting my new coconut grove. Rare occurrence are just what they are, happening once in a thousand or ten thousand years. And many thousand of years have past without such rare occurrences.

That is true. But tomorrow can be that day in a thousand years.

And it may not be a tsunami or an infestation. Perhaps the world tomorrow may no longer like coconuts for whatever reasons. Or on the other hand the world may discover that coconut is the raw material for the new green fuel that will save the earth.

I don't really know.

And then even if things happen exactly as I have guessed or calculated in my planning, it does not mean I made a poor decision to invest in my money losing coconut grove.

For it may be the best alternative I can do with my time, effort and resources today. And if I did something else - or nothing - I may be losing more money in the future. And then although my coconut still sells for $1 five years hence, that same $1 may buy me much more then than now.

So just as I can fantasized bad things, so too can I, good ones. What then do I believe and do?

Do I merely look at the good things I have imagined - some call this attitude, positive - or is there something less wishful and more valid than being merely positive or negative?

Do I proceed to prepare for my new coconut grove, buying seedlings and clearing the undergrowth and so on? Or do I sit paralysed by the imponderables, and let day after day passed in inaction?

I can of course rationalised some things.

First, the world will continue in its continuity as was the case most of the time. Then I can try to think, detect, speculate, what might throw a spanner into this continuity and upset it. And lastly I can imagine all kinds of catastrophic global events that completely change the world.

The latter however is not very useful. An event leading to the extinction of species makes irrelevant whether I make or lose money in coconuts. There is no use for money when I have no one to trade with.

From the continuity of history, I can study it, try to discern and detect its fundamental, constant drivers - if there are such things - and eventually to model it, from which to make predictions, do what-ifs conjectures, and develop plans and alternatives, and hedge my bets, and so on.

But even so I know there are no guarantees, despite there being a vast array of tools, expertise and experiences doing such things. Sometimes my insights are true, sometimes its all guesswork. Sometimes I missed the obvious, and sometimes the obvious turns out irrelevant. And when it fails, it can be very bad.

But it frees me from paralysis. It is something I can do. It may be futile but it may work too, and by action I can discover and learn things.

And then I do not stop there too. I can go on to try to guess what might create a discontinuity, conditions when my model may fail, with techniques such as scenario planning. Of course I know there are imperfections here too.

For example I do not think there was any scenario made about this collapse of the financial system. Or any about the price of oil skyrocketing to more than $150 a barrel one moment and diving to $30 the next.

I will include a global flu or some other sort of pandemic scenario because I have seen it and the world knows that there is such a thing. But it will be hard to include something the world has no experience or knows nothing about. No one will believe me even if I have seen it.

In hindsight people may say the signs for the present are always there in the past, but it is perhaps something humanly impossible to detect before the present.

For example even as far back as 2007, analysts have seen the possibility of sub prime mortgage loans being problematic, but, I think - as I have not read or heard anything contrary - no one predicted Depression 2.0 from that relatively small thing.

Further, I, the coconut farmer, needs tons of resources, knowledge, access to data, and time and, of course, lots of money too, just to do all these analysis, be it to model the demand and prices for my coconuts five years hence, or to detect the future scenarios and their drivers, hidden today but significant tomorrow, and to position myself to profit from them.

And it will certainly cost me more than I can ever earn from my coconuts, even if such services are available to me. And then it may not be any better than my intuitions.

And so what do I do?

Perhaps I just go on to do what I know what to do, namely to plant coconut trees, tend them to fruitful trees, harvest these fruits and bring them to the local market to sell. I will of course be fully aware and have experienced of all the uncertainties in the weather, climate, the market, the prices of things, and so on.

And so perhaps also I will pray, make sacrifices or do anything to please a god - any god - or gods, those that I know about, who can perhaps control tomorrow, and make these gods hear me, accede to my wishes, and make future conditions favourable for me. I am fully aware that I am limited in what I know and can do: the gods always have a say.

Chance is God's say in anything.

However there is an inherent contradiction here.

For if I can beseech my gods and make them hear me, to make them accede to my wishes, why just stop at coconut's prices?

It is just like having one opportunity to make one certain wish: I would have wished that all my wishes I wished thereafter be certain ones too.

So really, if I have such god or gods, I can do anything - plant mangoes or rear chickens or open a beach front pub instead of tending coconut trees, and even anything seemingly foolish, irrational, and laughable in the light of all the world's wisdom. For conditions, even global ones, can be shifted and changed tomorrow to transform my foolishness into something wise, good and profitable.

Unless, of course, these god or gods are limited in their reach and has restricted capabilities, and I just cannot wish any wish. And then they may be no better than we ourselves, the collective humankind.

The Fallacy of the Long Term

2009-02-10T14:55:00.006+08:00

When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up.
Lee Kuan Yew, 6 Feb 2009

The company dies, your shares are not worth the paper it is printed on.

Who knows.

More often the long term is either an excuse for a bad short term decision, or a hopeful, but de facto, position after that decision's outcome is known.

A long term investment is planting a fruit tree which takes many seasons to bear fruit, and you are sure the fruit remains highly valued and in great demand even then; and it will more than pay up for all the costs in the many seasons of care and tending, and the opportunity costs incurred to do so.

But a long term investment is not buying a land to plant padi only to realise that the water have stopped and you can only convert that padi field to an orchard.

A long term investment makes sense and is rational only if it gives better returns than a short term one.

But who can know the long term?

And if you cannot know in the short term, what makes you a better player for the long term? And if indeed you can see the long term why not go out to 50 years and hundreds of years and not stop at 10 and 20 years?

The only thing knowable about the long term - apart from everyone being dead - is that a coconut tree takes a few seasons before it bears fruit. But I can never ever really know that the world still needs coconut as much as it needs today and tomorrow.

Even if it is, or seemingly, obvious and indisputable that the world will forever need energy, I am still not certain that I should invest in developing an oilfield or a coal field. It is even less certain that I should invest in green energy. And the uncertainty is not so much that these things wont happen nor that energy in all forms will always be in demand, but whether I make better returns than going the short term.

And a long term losing investment is nevertheless always good, as long as it is profitable just the day before you redeemed it. So the long term can be as long as it is necessary, but, of course, not before you are dead.

And if your needs for tomorrow are always met, what need for investments - long or short - then?

Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!
Jesus Christ

The Mark of the Beast

2008-11-04T10:30:00.009+08:00

Fix these words of mine
in your hearts and minds;
tie them as symbols
on your hands and
bind them on your foreheads.
[Deut 11:18]

And the Jews literally made small black leather boxes containing scraps of the Torah and bind them with black leather straps on their arms and their foreheads.

I was most surprised when I first saw religious Jews in Israel wearing them. For it was obvious, at least until then, that the injunction was a figurative one, and the true injunction really is to "fix" God's word in one's mind and heart. Now that is the thing to be taken literally!

I also scanned the Internet and realised there are lots of discussion on whether the bindings are literal or not. Of course I think these entirely misses the point: for even if one is to literally bind the "word" - ironically in symbolic scraps - on one's hands and head, they are - and again directly from the word itself, in the same sentence - just symbolic. So the real question is symbolic of what? And that was not discussed.

And this binding was first mentioned, in Exodus, at the giving of the Ten Commandments itself:

... Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within your borders. On that day tell your son, 'I do this because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that the law of the LORD is to be on your lips.
[Ex 13:7-11]

So it is the eating of unleavened bread, and this observance is like a sign and reminder.

In other words even as a tattoo or a scar on the hands and heads serves as a constant, indelible, visible, and permanent reminder to yourselves and others, so shall the eating of unleavened bread serves to constantly remind yourselves and others as to who you are: 'I do this because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.'

And later in the same chapter of Exodus:

This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons. And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.
[Ex 13:15-16]

So here it is the sacrifice of the first born that is to be the same as a sign on one's hands and foreheads, and again to remind of the same thing: God leading us out from Egypt. And yes we too are called out from Egypt, even Christ was called out of Egypt:

... out of Egypt I called my son.
[Ho 11:1]

And we too ought to wear on our hands and our foreheads the sign that the Lord have led us out from Egypt, which is this world. For we are pilgrims: we are in this world but not of this world.

And by the time of the second saying in Deuteronomy, it is the entire infusion of the word in our lives: in our hearts and souls, in our waking and lying down, in our thoughts, our words and actions, in what we do or don't, in what we say or don't, that will perform the same as any marks or engravings on our hands and foreheads.

So are we wearing the mark of Christ on our hands and foreheads? Can it be seen that we are not of this world, that we have come out of Egypt? Is this mark permanently seared and engraved in blood on living flesh in our lives? Do we have the mark of Christ in us? Are we God's letters written in bleeding living hearts, unhidden, clearly seen and legible to all and any who sees and knows us?

And conversely can we also recognised the marks of the Beast? Are they not as clearly visible and constant as those of Christ too? And even as the word of God fixed in our hearts is our visible mark, what is that in the hearts of those without Christ?

He (the Lamb with the voice of the Dragon) also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
[Rev 13: 16-18]

Immediately it is obvious that this mark has something to do with buying and selling. And for anyone to buy and sell you need Money.

So is Money then the mark of the Beast?

(And it is not really a strange thing that Money is a Mark of the Beast, for it has been rumoured for a long time that the Singapore one dollar coin was designed to meet fengshui requirements on the directions of none other than the then Prime Minister himself.)

And Money is not just a particular currency but the very notion and system that is Money itself, ie a worthless but trusted token representing value, which works only because everyone have faith in it, and which facilitates exchanges and trades - as per the Third Horseman - and all the economies and businesses derived from such a token.

Money is a perverse demonstration of faith. It cannot come into being without faith.

I accept your money, in exchange for my goods and services, because I have faith that someone will accept the same - and I can buy what I need - and via this recursive faith, Money comes into being. And Money is real, very real, and even now more powerful than any armies in the world.

(Just imagine then, conversely, the power of true faith.)

And even Mr George Bush the president of the most powerful country today on earth, succumbed to its demands, and its fathomless appetite, and no one can afford to maintain his principles, eg free market, and insist on being Republican or Democrat, but all have to be so called bi-partisan. And the Americans will abandon Taiwan without a second thought if Chinese money is needed, if it has not already happened. (And this event in early Oct 08 could just be a cover up.) And the British have courted Arab money.

So is not Money the real power in the world today? And does not the Market have a life of its own that no one, not even George Soros or Warren Buffet, or even any government can do a thing about, but rather all are its slaves and compel to serve it; and no one can walk away from it.

And are not almost everyone in the world so infused with Money in their thoughts, in their work, and in their attitudes and acts, such as to whom they befriend or not? I have known people who hated each other, but for the sake of business and some gains, engaged in dialogue and relationships, just for the mere potential of profits. If that is not prostitution then there is no need for that word.

And so whereas the Word in our hearts manifest itself outwardly even as clearly as any mark on our hands and foreheads, it is the outward manifestations of the world's hearts and minds in their constant and relentless pursuit of money which are the signs on their hands and foreheads, ie the mark of the Beast.

And whereas we know from the Word of God, the world can only know from Numbers, for the word in the world is thoroughly corrupted even from the time of Babel. And the Number of Man is anything that is derived from measurements, mathematics and symbolic thoughts, like logic. And all knowledge and wisdom of man can only be attained through numbers. And Economics is one such number.

The Temptations of Christ

2008-10-31T21:17:00.006+08:00

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:

" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

[Mat 4:1-11]

Now whether this narrative is literal or not have been debated for a long time.

We can however be certain that it happened, spiritually, at the least. For Satan is a spiritual being and conversation between him and Jesus and the things seen must have occurred in the spiritual realms. Perhaps it is not unlike a dream or a hallucination.

But more importantly is the fact that Jesus was tempted:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
[Heb 4:15]

Jesus was tempted in every way.

And the tempter is Satan.

The questions then are:

Are these three temptations all the every ways of temptations, ie in these temptation are all the temptations that the son of man in the flesh will be tempted? How did the writer of Hebrews knew that Jesus was tempted in every way?

Apart from these three temptations was Jesus not tempted in other times, times that were never recorded, eg when Jesus was a boy or a young man.

On the second question, it is important to note that Jesus' sinlessness in the flesh is important—in fact essential—to fulfill the Law of Moses. For Jesus, the Son of Man, amongst other things, had to demonstrate that the Law can be fulfilled in the flesh, and also to be the unblemished Passover lamb, and the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur, to be a worthy sacrifice to take away all sins.

Of course we do not have records of every moment of Jesus' life and thoughts—we do not and cannot know every thing that Jesus saw, thought, said, or acted—to know that he did not sin for any single moment. However it was clear to the Jews themselves that God was with Jesus—for the miracles that he did and for his teachings—and that to the Jews was confirmation enough that a person is sinless and righteous, and that the Law is fulfilled in Jesus.

Further the death of Jesus on the cross, and prior to that, God forsaking Jesus, was a sign that Jesus actually died in sin—if Jesus had remained sinless, he would have hung undying on the cross, a most horrible and grotesque thing that will be.

But thank God, Jesus died.

And as he was without sin before being hung on the cross, we can be assured then that he had sin put on him. We may not know if it was the sin of the world for all peoples for all times, but it sufficed us to know that Jesus died a sinner.

And thus the Gentiles have hope too.

For the Gentiles now know that a man died and was resurrected. And so all who will die, can now believe in the God of Jesus to save them, even as Jesus demonstrated that the dead shall come to life again.

Now were the temptations tempting Jesus all and every temptations that Man can be tempted with?

First a temptation is a temptation only if one can be tempted by it. A cigarette will not be a temptation to one who does not smoke, but possibly an irresistible one to one trying to quit smoking.

We can feel and understand how Jesus being in the flesh can be tempted by food after forty days and nights of fasting. And we can also understand that Jesus was certainly tempted in all things in the flesh, all things carnal, just as we are, ie not just food, but shelter, rest, companionship, sex, etc etc. If we read the above passage allegorically, then this first temptation is a representation of one kind of temptation that befalls Man, namely that due to being in the flesh.

The real temptation here is to forgo feeding the spirit, with God's word—for we are ultimately spiritual beings too—and to seek instead to feed the demands of one's flesh. The latter is not a sin per se but mostly it is pursued at the expense or in lieu of the former. That was the sin, and not the abuse God's word to turn stone to bread nor the tending of the flesh's needs.

It is a little harder to feel the temptations in Jesus' second temptation: to throw himself off the temple and to have angels rescue him, to test God, or in principle to abuse or misuse the promises of God for other than what is intended, and in this instance, for trivial vainglorious ends.

However this may not be as uncommon or unknown to us as we think.

For many do search through the Bible and to pick out verses and promises and make claims to it, namely the attitude of "Name it! Claim it!" But we see here that just because something is promised—"It is written"—does not mean it is to be claimed in just any way. For "it is also written" elsewhere, sometimes, a higher and more general principle or intent, which may condition a specific isolated promise.

But the real temptation here is the temptation of Sonship, of being the Son of God, even as the first was due to being in the flesh, the Son of Man.

For Satan prefaced both the first and second temptation with "If you are the Son of God ..." and then went on to tempt Jesus. Whereas the first is for a necessity—something that even a wicked Father will forgive if asking was indeed a sin—the second was to abuse God's promises merely to glorify oneself as the Son of God.

So the second kind of temptation only applies to those who are Sons of God, who can make the claim that God is their Father, and who knows God hears them when they cry. Balaam's sin is perhaps from falling to this temptation, for Balaam was a prophet of God, whom God hears, and who Balaam blesses, God bless, and who Balaam curses, God curse.

But it's still a little hard to feel why the second temptation is as tempting as the the first. Why should Jesus be tempted by such a silly thing at all, something easily dismissed as a non smoker, a cigarette?

For us there is perhaps the temptation to show—or showoff—to others that God is with us, that God hears us, and we demonstrate this by flaunting God's blessings upon us, such as wealth and prosperity, or spiritual gifts, and we ask to such effects. And so we fall to this second kind of temptation.

And then there is the third kind of temptation.

Here Satan promised Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for Jesus' worship of him.

It is even harder to understanding how this can be tempting to Jesus.

Perhaps to Man to be offered even just a kingdom, can be very tempting indeed, especially when exchanged for merely the worship of Satan. And indeed many people in the world have sold themselves to the Devil, or will eagerly do so at any chance, for far less than that.

But for Jesus, firstly all the kingdoms of the world are his to begin with, and nothing for Satan to offer at all, and secondly it is destined to be Jesus' shortly too. There is only thing: Jesus have to suffer and die on the cross, to receive his inheritance and fulfill his destiny.

Indeed the pain and agony in the flesh of that death, and even more so the separation from the Father, albeit temporarily, is a daunting challenge, even for Jesus—if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me [Mat 26:39]—and we can only imagined how Jesus was tempted to bow down and worship Satan to avoid the cup God has destined him.

I call this third kind of temptation, the temptation of destiny.

And as an example, we see Abraham falling to this temptation when Sara gave him Hagar to create that promised offspring. This is the temptation of Man trying to fulfill his promised destiny—"it is written"—as he sees and knows how, and in his time as he understands time.

We are tempted to fulfill ourselves, especially more so when somehow we know it is destined. But our destiny do not justify what and how and when we go about doing it, sorely tempted though we may be—but rather we are to be circumcised, in spirit and in heart, and await in patience, longsuffering and faith, to let God fulfill us for ourselves, and in God's way and God's time.

From Hagar we have Ishmael. And then God gave Abraham the covenant of the circumcision. And Issac is the son of the circumcision—the circumcision being a sign, a reminder, when engaged in the sexual procreation act, that it is God who will fulfill for us what he has promised for us. Today we have the continuing conflict between the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Issac, and is arguably the root cause of many conflicts in the world today.

And Eve too fell to this temptation when Satan told her, "You will not surely die."

Do we, in our ordinary lives, get tempted by temptations of this kind too?

I think we do, but we may not be always aware of them, as it is so justifiable, and natural, and right to ask for and even go grab at any opportunity to do and to make happen that which we know, deep in our spirit, is ours and which we feel we are destined for. But we may be tempted and have fallen even as Abraham fell without knowing.

And so we see in the Temptations of Christ—allegorical, literal or yet something else—three types or kinds of temptations that will befall the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Are these all and every temptations?

They are certainly wide and encompassing, especially when the specific temptations are seen as representatives of kinds or types of temptations. And it is possible to fit any and all temptations we are tempted with—as we are aware of them as such—into one of these three categories. And thus we can be assured that Jesus can fully feel with and for us, being Son of Man, and Son of God.

The Beasts of Revelation (Part II)

2008-10-24T09:08:00.014+08:00

An alternative interpretation of the seven heads on the Beast that came from the sea is that the seventh head is the Ottoman Empire, which cemented their status as the then world's sole superpower with their capture of Constantinople in 1453.

And then there is yet another alternative.

In one of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, he dreamt of a giant statue with a head of gold, chest of silver, thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of a mixture of clay and iron. Its meaning was revealed to Daniel, namely that these are world powers to come, starting with the head of gold which was Nebuchadnezzar himself.

Now from hindsight of history we know that the silver chest were the Persions, the bronze thighs was Alexander the Great, and the cruel legs of iron, the Romans, which are all heads on the Beast.

And thus the feet of mix of clay and iron is also of the Beast, the seventh head.

In other words the seventh head need not be a single power but a mix of nations, fragmented, disunited, some weak and some strong, but together they rule and run world affairs.

This state of nations was certainly the case from the onset of Byzantine empire, where countless states were formed, destroyed, reformed, conquered, reconquered, sometimes friends, sometimes enemies, etc etc. And the Ottoman empire reigned in such a time, and it was simply a pre-eminent power amongst the myraid of powers, both weak and strong.

In this interpretation, we are then already in the days of the Beast himself, the eighth power.

And I will conjecture to say that this power revealed itself with the start of naval explorations by the European nations of Portugal, Spain, the Dutch and then the English, which eventually led to international maritime trade, colonisation, the rise of the maritime superpowers, namely Great Britain and the USA, and then globalisation and capitalism in this world today.

China then too could have become a maritime power, but it curtailed itself.

And the Beast came from the sea.

And then there are the ten horns on the Beast who will rule for one hour with the Beast. We are then in this one hour of these horns' reign. Who are they?

The Beasts of Revelation (Part I)

2008-10-10T10:40:00.009+08:00

The Beast that Comes from the Sea

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea.

He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.

The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed.

The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.

Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them.

And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

[Rev 13:1-8]

So it has been revealed that there are eight powers that ruled the earth, as there are seven heads on the Beast that came from the sea in Revelations, and the Beast itself, and "explained" in Rev 17, and in Daniel, of which "five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come".

And the power that was at that time, was Rome.

Working backwards in time, we identified the other five fallen powers to be Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and the Greeks under Alexander the Great.

Some would not count Egypt, but split the Persians into two: Medes and Persia. And then there are others who count the Roman kings instead, but I think a biblically more consistent interpretation is to match them to world powers as was explained to Daniel in his visions.

(As an aside, people in a time always try to fit all that is known into what is revealed. This may not be wise. From comparison of history and revelation, we can know what we do not know, and then we know what to see as the future unfolds, and thus our are eyes are open to see.)

And then one of these heads appear to have a fatal wound - wounded by the sword [Rev 13] - but is yet alive. Which head can this be? What mortal wound is this?

And now almost two thousand years have passed, and we are still not sure who is the seventh head, and also who is the Beast which is the eight power.

It is arguable that the USA is the seventh head (see also here), especially since the USSR imploded leaving behind a unipolar world, a situation similar to the times during the reign of the other six heads on the Beast.

(See here for another interpretation of the seventh head.)

And this seventh head has remain a little while only.

If the current financial crisis is the death knell of the USA, then will we be seeing the eight power, the Beast itself - who once was, is not, but will be - now being revealed? And is this crisis the mortal wound that John saw on one of the Beast's head?

Also that the seven world powers are heads on this beast seems to suggest that this beast is the true power empowering all of them, and that the eight power, the Beast itself, the sum of the heads and more, will be differently manifested.

It may not be a nation or any kind of superpower, even as Capitalism is a real, global and pervasive power but yet does not reside in or emanate from a person or a nation. And certainly there are no "tribe, people, language and nation" untouched by Capitalism today.

Or perhaps the Beast is something yet to be seen, something unexperienced or ever imagined in the world today, which will arise from the aftermath of this present crisis.

And there may be echoes and glimpse of such a thing already. For one of the consequences of the Great Depression of 1929, was WWII, and for that we have Hitler.

And then it is seems obvious to think that China will be the next superpower after the USA, thus the Beast itself - and its colour is red too, and its national symbol is the Dragon - but it may fall too with the USA in this present crisis.

Thus, at this moment, we can only be ever so more vigilant, and watch, and to seek out the things not seen.

And then there are the ten horns on this beast. It is not clear if these horns are distributed on the heads or are they extra protrusions elsewhere on the beast's body. It is is easier to envisage the latter. What is revealed is:

The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.
[Rev 17:12-14]

And Daniel also saw that three of these horns will fall and in its place a little horn will arise.

While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
[Dan 7:8]

From what I can see in my temporal horizon, I cannot yet glimpse who or what these ten horns might be, and even less who the three to fall can be. And also Revelation seems to suggest that these ten horns will reign in the time of the Beast itself, who will reign only "forty two months".

Going back to Hitler, as example of things to come, who persecute the Jews then, this time these powers will persecute the "chosen and faithful followers". And these are not necessarily the Christian churches as we know of these churches in the world today.

In fact the churches could be in cahoot with these very powers, namely the other Beast, the Lamb who spoke with a voice of a dragon. For not all the chosen and faithful followers are necessarily "churched". They are many who wander the earth as pilgrims, longing for a home that is not the earth.

So this is the time to watch.

And very trying times are ahead:

If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.
[Rev 13:10]

Even so as Habakkuk sat on the tower, and watched, and affirmed in faith:

Though the fig tree does not bud,
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails,
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen,
and no cattle in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

Watching and Waiting

2008-10-09T16:42:00.007+08:00

We see but not know.

We cannot know even if revealed to us.

For we see, not clearly, but veiled.

We can only watch and wait, until the veil is remove.

What is revealed is like a template, with which you use to filter your various perspectives, hypotheses, understanding and others' explanations and interpretations, of reality, even as it happens, and you know only when all fit the template, perfectly.

Then the time has come.

Until then we wait, and watch.

The Fourth Horseman

2008-10-09T14:40:00.012+08:00

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.
[Rev 6:7-8]

Paradoxically, what seemingly is most straightforward of horsemen is actually the most mystifying and perplexing.

What can be more straightforward an interpretation than what is written, namely that a quarter of the earth shall die from the sword - which is often taken as symbolic of wars and conflict - famine, plaque and wild beast of the earth.

But a little reflection reveals something amissed.

For surely everyone dies, and not just a quarter of the earth. For God have made it explicit that man shall not live more than a hundred and twenty years:

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
[Gen 6:3]

God proclaimed this in the times of Noah, before the Flood, and Noah himself lived up to 350 years and much later Abraham lived to 157 years. Moses however died exactly at 120 years. So it seems that there is a gradual decline in man's lifespan from that proclaimation, and only effected from the time of Moses, and now any centenarian is something to be amazed about.

Perhaps the death by the Fourth Horseman, named Death, and his partner, Hades, is not the same kind of death as the death that all mortals will die from. What death is this then? is it more accursed to die from this death?

Further what is the significance of dying from the sword, famine, plaque and wild beasts' attacks as compared to that from earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, accidents - industrial, domestic, etc - ordinary sicknesses and diseases, congential hereditary defects, or just "old" age?

Then it does not seem to say anything new nor does it give any new insight, unlike the other three horsemen.

Whatever your interpretation of the preceeding horsemen, the fourth is just an echo of them all, a kind of summary or conclusion to that which preceeded, namely that death is the end of this all.

So is it just a summary?

It can simply means that Death is the outcome to whatever Man does, in all his endeavours. But my interpretation framework or perspective thus far is that these horsemen reveals the essence of what mankind and earthly life is all about, or the fundamental characteristics which shaped and defined what humankind is, for all times from the beginning to the end. This fourth horseman is - apparently - not saying anything of this sort.

And so I rather consistently think it is saying something that I cannot discern at this moment in time.

There is however a new thing, not suggested in the preceeding horsemen, namely that mankind being killed by wild beasts of the earth.

This is actually strange thing: for animals do not naturally attack humans, for they are given a spirit to fear man, as God have ordained so:

The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
[Gen 9:2]

This God ordained after the Flood even as he sets a bow in the sky.

But of course people have been killed by animals from a long time ago, certainly in biblical times: it is entirely believable to Jacob that Joseph was attacked and killed by a wild beast. And that only means that the fourth horseman have been in the world again from a long time ago too, as with the other three.

Nonetheless deaths from wild beasts of the earth is a rare thing, and probably getting rarer.

For example in the US around the period of year 2000, 177 annual fatalities are due to animals, which includes such as riding accidents, as compared to over 2 million total fatalities (of which 20% are tabacco related), ie in the order of 0.01%.

So deaths from animal attacks are very very insignificant, at least in terms of their numbers, and will perhaps get even less significant as the wilderness shrinks and mankind have less opportunity meeting wild animals. Also species are going extinct even by the day.

So what is the significance about death from wild beasts' attack? What is the big deal about Man being killed by wild beasts of the earth?

Perhaps there is yet-to-happen scenario where wild animals, or insects, lose the spirit of the fear of Man and go on a rampage and deaths from animals' attack becomes a significant proportion of deaths. That sounds scary indeed, but this is purely speculative.

But we need not speculate, for we can already know for certain that God's ordination is somehow breached.

And for this to happen either wild beasts, in specific individuals or in their entirety, had a new spirit that no longer fear Man, or conversely that Man, again individually or in the entire mankind, is of a new spirit, for which these wild animals do not fear or which do not come under God's original protective ordination. And the change of spirit either in the animals or in Man himself is in the authority given to this horseman, Death, and his partner Hades.

And so the Fourth Horseman may be saying that life's nature is fundamentally changed on this earth, even at the spiritual level.

Then there is yet another strange thing, namely death from death itself. The original Greek that is translated plaque is actually the exact same word as the name of the Fourth Horseman, translated Death. It is hard to make sense of death by death itself.

But we can be sure of one thing, namely this death is by the joint authority of the Fourth horsemen and Hades: "They were given power ...". Thus the authority is not solely the Devil's, but rather given jointly to both Man and the Devil. In other words the Devil cannot work on his own. He needs Man, even as Man needs the Devil, to do their deeds.

So whereas Man was created in the likeness of God to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground" [Gen 1:26], now Man works with Hades, or the Devil, as a partner to fundamentally change the spiritual nature of things on earth.

And Death is an unnatural thing, for Man was created for Eternity, even as the Devil knew from the Beginning.

Finally we can perhaps read in the current environmental impact and irreversible changes caused by Man's activities, as a reflection of the impact and changes that have been occuring in the spiritual nature of all things, by Man working with his partner, Hades.

Knowledge: Public and Private

2008-08-26T22:18:00.002+08:00

If what I know, you too can corroborate, and need not depend on you simply and blindly trusting what I say, then it is public knowledge.

If what I know, you cannot corroborate, and you have to, ultimately, take my word for it, then it is private knowledge.

Public knowledge can be shared, and is common to all mankind.

Private knowledge is just between you and God.

I will not believe anyone whose only argument is to believe and trust him - he could well be true, but I would not know that either - and neither would I just ask you just to trust and believe me when I proffer a truth.

You may say I am missing something if I do not merely believe in a truth, but so be it, for it was not given to me to know in the first place.

The Third Horseman

2008-08-26T21:50:00.018+08:00

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

[Rev 6:5-6]

The obvious picture here is of trade and exchange, of wages and money, and of value and prices; and thus in essence, commerce and, more generally, economics. And trade, exchange and barter are perhaps as old as mankind itself.

Economics today is justified today as the efficient distribution of goods and services. And in capitalist systems, which is apparently the only system in the world today - or perhaps from a long time ago, even when the Communists were around - this is achieved through the market, ie Adam Smith's invisible hand, which is ultimately founded on and created by every person pursuing his greed to the utmost.

This, to me, is the most direct and intrinsic interpretation from these few words. Many have interpreted this horseman to mean famine, which I think is farfetched and unnecessary. Perhaps it conjured up images of people coming to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain during that famine or maybe of Elisha's prophecy in 2 Kings 7:1 where a price is put on the flour and barley. Or maybe it is an attempt to create a consistent interpretation following the wars in the 2nd horseman.

But I think such associations are all unnecessary, especially as a straightforward interpretation is available.

And today, right at this moment in time, it is also obvious that this third horse is very strong and alive and in the world today. (Or is it ?)

OK, so what is being revealed?

Perhaps Revelation not so much reveals what is to come in the future, for which Prophecy may be more accurate, but rather functions as insights, revealing the true nature of things, and giving meaning and comprehension to the myraid events in all the world for all times, past, present and future.

So the first horseman reveals that man has usurp God's dominion of the earth, and striving to achieve this to the ends and depths of the earth, and beyond, and exercising and enforcing this dominion through kingship, politics, governments, etc which is ultimately based on the force of arms and the threat of death directly or otherwise. (The effectiveness of the law of the land, and even of God's, specifically the Torah, is ultimately based on this too.)

And this fear of death, the reason for the lack of peace, is what the second horseman reveals. It is effective, and it is the basis for all relationship between Man ever since the beginning. For where we ought to act in love, now it is the compulsion of others to act for you, and, in turn, being compelled to act for others, by threats to their or your peace respectively.

And the third horseman continues in this relationship, but with the introduction of a new thing, namely money and trade.

So where once I am fed when I am hungry, and given drink when thirsty, clothed when naked, and reciprocally, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and giving shelter and warmth to the pilgrim and poor, now we trade our strength, wits, and for some even heart and soul for our food and drink, and sometimes wine, through the medium of money.

And where the reason for relationship - any relationship - ought to be love, now it is trade or exchange; and with the accompanying attitude of "What do I get in return" or "What's in it for me?" in any transaction and relationship.

(And we relate to God with the same attitude too.)

And whereas love is the currency in God's economy, it is money in the world's.

The one who can pay gets to eat.

(And why are prices of food rising? And who suffers most for it? And Jesus said there will always be the poor in the world.)

You get medical treatment not because you need it but because you can pay for it.

And so we have cosmetic plastic surgery, something entirely unnecessary for health but it is a nevertheless a thriving industry, for wealthy, healthy people needs to be beautiful too.

And where it could be give and take - take what you need, give what you have (even if you need it later) - it is now all buy and sell, in kind or in cash; and even the cash - or the worthless tokens of worth itself - and other vacuous things, like options and indices, are themselves bought and sold.

And with money, where once you give me wheat and wine for you fear me, now I fear no one if I have money. And conversely unless you have money you are nothing - even if you can beat to death anyone with your bare hands - and you will be the scum of the earth.

Money in a perverse way is a great demonstration of the collective power of faith: everyone acting on their belief that others too will have the same faith in this same token as a promise of value, gives that same token that very promised value, and even more, when it has none intrinsically on its own.

Thus money becomes a monster of its own, created by the overwhelming faith of Man, and it becomes god. And arguably even death is less feared than money, or the lack of it.

Money in fact is the Great Prostitute that sits on the beast with seven heads and ten horns. The latter being the economic power in the world, which is presently the G8 or G10; and these powers worship money, their true god.

And indeed all the world, even the so called church included, have prostituted themselves to the god of Money, eg have you not heard pastorpreneurship?

More on Money later on, but for now these have been prophesised:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

[1 Tim 6:10]

The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

[Rev 17:16]

What will the scenario be when the world monetary system collapses? And when the world economies turn on Money and hate it - to "eat her flesh and burn her up with fire"

Or perhaps, and I think more likely, Money will take on a monstrous life of its own - sitting on and and dominating the seven-headed, ten-horned beast - beyond the control and influence of anyone.

We may have had a glimpse and a hint of these scenarioes in the Great Depression in 1929, and in the Asian currency meltdown in 1997.

It is fearfully amazing to even think what else may come.

Even so, Lord Jesus, Come! Maranatha! Amen!

(And now the Fourth Horseman ... )

The More We Know the Less We Know

2008-08-06T14:09:00.003+08:00

If for everything new we know, we have only two more questions, without answers, then the more we know, the more we don't know. So with increasing knowledge, we only become increasingly aware of our fundamental ignorance.

Humans and Animals

2008-06-24T22:08:00.003+08:00

Saw a documentary on TV today. It was about scientists studying chimpanzees.

In an experiment, a tray of food was put beside the cage of a chimp, accessible to it through the bars. But a rope was attached to that tray whose end was in another cage where there was another chimp.

What happened next was this other chimp pulled on the rope and brought the tray of food to himself, and making it inaccessible to the first chimp. The deprived chimp then became enraged, or seemingly so, and started screaming and acting violent in his cage.

One interpretation is of course that the chimp is enraged because the other chimp "stole" his food, and that chimps have a sense of justice and fair play too.

Then the experiment was repeated, but this time it was the human experimenter that moved the tray to the other cage. The chimp expressed no outrage and remain entirely indifferent to what the human experimenter did.

There is a possible parallel in such a behaviour in humans too.

When a city gets destroyed by a natural disaster, like an earthquake or a storm, humans accept it without complain or rage or sense of injustice. But when a single building is destroyed by some other human beings, a country goes to war with another nation.

Animals' perceptions of us humans, and the gulf and gap between us, is possibly a glimpse of the separation and distance between us and God. And animals are created for the sake of mankind, that we somehow can have a glimpse of God's perspective of his creation, and what it is like to relate to someone "lower" than us.

And also if we can have compassion for animals, whom we did not create, how much more is God's compassion for us, whom he has created above the animals.

The Second Horseman

2008-03-17T11:27:00.008+08:00

When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come!" Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword.

[Rev 6:3-4]

The key words to me are, "take peace from the earth", and "make men slay each other".

Then the immediate question is: what is peace?

Now it must be obvious that we do not know this peace as it was taken away from earth, even from long ago, certainly as early as when Cain murdered his brother Abel. On the other hand, we also know that Jesus before he died and resurrected said:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

[John 14:27]

Again what is this peace that Jesus gives?

To me the peace is this, namely the assurance that God is God, and even sin and death cannot destroy us, even as Jesus demonstrated God's victory over sin and death in his resurrection. Until Jesus there was no certainty that death is not the end, and thus the angst in Ecclesiastes.

But with the certainty and thus our assurance we have no or need not have any more fear of death and it ought not be something that man can exploit to "blackmail" us, ie to induce, compel or coerce us to do things solely to avoid the fear and threat of death.

And that is precisely what the red horseman did: to put upon man himself to use this fear - to make man slay one another - to further his goal of dominance on earth, ie as was introduced by the first horseman.

And this is what we see in the world from the very beginning. And this fear is the very reason armies are effective instruments in this world.

It is also this fear of death that makes us prostitute ourselves, as in compromising our being and selves, for example for the sake of earning money to continue our physical livelihood. And this prostitution is what the third horseman is about.

The First Horseman

2008-03-16T18:42:00.011+08:00

I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

[Rev 6:1-2]

In various commentaries the rider on the white horse is interpreted as Christ himself. Yet in others he is the anti-Christ.

To me the rider is simple Man himself, but with a crown, representing dominion and authority. And where once the earth was part of the kingdom of God, it is now the kingdom of Man.

And Man is bent on bringing all of earth under his dominion by means of the force of arms as depicted in the bow in his hands.

And so Man usurps the authority of God on earth.

We see the rider on the white horse with a crown and a bow in all the powers, empires, kingdoms and governments in all the countries in the world from the past till today.

And where once people depends on God, now they depend on themselves. Where once people had faith, now they rely on their authority, wit, power, etc, to pursue their own goals, whatever these may be, even if they be meaningless and futile.

And Man is indeed powerful, especially when they are of one heart and one mind, and is capable of many feats and achievements, from the Tower of Babel in the past to the space station today and more beyond.

But Man is not God.

And so this is the first attribute that is painted in the first horseman, namely that the world is faithless, believing in themselves and setting themselves to be God, ie idolatry.

(Next: The Second Horseman)

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Part I)

2008-03-14T18:39:00.014+08:00

A necessary element to understand Revelation is having a correct concept of time.

Revelation, the title, connotes an insight into the future. This is indeed true, but it need not suggest that the book was written in any chronological manner.

That one apparent event is mentioned after another, does not mean that event occurs after the latter, if such an event even occurred.

For just as we list the attributes of a thing - in the limitation of the human language - one attribute after another, we are obviously not saying that one attribute is before or after another in time. All attributes exist simultaneously at one time and for all times.

Another example is music.

For even as music is played one note at a time, the essence of the music, as in the drama and the emotions that are heard and felt, are not in time itself; and neither do we hear one note at a time. But we hear music.

So then time can merely be a vehicle for the communication of something eternal and timeless.

And also perhaps the appearance of the horsemen at each opening of the seals need not be chronological events, occurring one after another, but rather are like attributes of a thing, or the notes of a music, as the means to paint a picture.

And so what is this picture painted by the horsemen? What is the essential whole that our imaginations are to see, even as our ears hear music and not individual notes?

That will be answered next.

What We Know

2008-03-13T14:29:00.003+08:00

We know that we know some things.

We also know that we don't know other things.

And we also know that we know only a part - a very small part - of all that is known to humankind, in all the world, for all times.

And we may not know - but we can bet - that there is no one who knows all that is known, even if all known things are written in wikipedia.

But we may know something that the whole wide world don't.

Yes, the probability is very very small, ie very improbable, but it is still very possible, ie not impossible, as that is one way how discoveries and inventions had happened, and will continue to happen.

More fundamentally there are things knowable and things unknowable.

We know these too, and we also know that of things knowable, all may not be known now, even if we know fundamentally that they are knowable.

An example of a thing that is a known unknowable, is the exact position and exact momentum of a particle at any point in time, namely the Heisenberg Principle. This unknowability is a fundamental one in that it is beyond our reasoning and perception, for all efforts, for all time. And of course many people don't know this uncertainty principle, not that it matters to them anyway.

Another known unknowable thing is some aspects of history for which no trace whatsoever survived over time. What is knowable is only whatever perceptible to humans.

And we also know the future is unknowable.

Of the things known to be knowable - or so we think - an example could be all the proteins that the human chromosomes can generate.

Of course there are always things that is unknowable now if it is knowable or not, for example, the question, are we alone in the Universe.

And last, and most intriguingly, is the possibility that a person can know a thing that is unknowable.

How can it be so?

Things knowable are those accessible to our knowledge by means of reason and perception. But certainly there are things inaccessible by mere reason and perception. And so are there other ways of knowing apart from these?

I think there are.

PS: We can summarise all these into a cube with each axis having two values, namely, (Know, Don't Know), (Known, Unknown), and (Knowable, Unknowable).

Clever

2007-11-20T10:15:00.000+08:00

There's Clever.

And on one side of it you have, Too Clever.

And then on the other side, Wise.

Image of God

2007-09-23T17:07:00.000+08:00

We are made in the image of God as a fractal is an image of the whole, and not as an illusion reflected in a mirror.

A fractal is identical to the whole in every part, but yet it is not the whole.

The whole only becomes when all fractal parts are in the right place altogether.

Prostitution

2007-09-22T18:11:00.000+08:00

Prostitution is the compromise of one's integrity, especially in return for something non essential or irrelevant to one's identity.

So to think and see different just for the sake of pleasing the boss or for gain is as much a prostitution as one who sells her body for money.

Esau selling his birth right for a bowl of pea soup is another example.

And Israel was a prostitute too when she compromised her identity, which was essentially derived from a relationship with God, by exploiting worldly relationships instead, such as seeking a king and forming allies.

What is Good?

2007-03-06T17:44:00.000+08:00

A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
[Pro 12:10]

Good is what good does.

And evil is what evil does.

Red Moon

2007-03-06T17:20:00.000+08:00

lunar eclipse, originally uploaded by Grzesiek

I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red ... [Rev 6:12]

Green and Yellow

2006-10-20T11:52:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-18T17:58:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-02T00:13:00.000+08:00

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

2006-09-25T22:53:00.000+08:00

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

2006-09-03T22:26:00.000+08:00

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

2006-08-15T22:41:00.000+08:00

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

2006-03-24T16:40:00.000+08:00

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

2006-03-14T13:51:00.000+08:00

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

2006-03-06T20:29:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-10T17:22:00.000+08:00

" ... 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

2006-02-07T09:55:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-04T02:37:00.000+08:00

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

2006-01-29T14:32:00.000+08:00

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

2006-01-05T11:19:00.000+08:00

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.

Futility

2005-12-03T01:20:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-22T08:54:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-20T12:59:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-14T18:30:00.000+08:00

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 ... "

2005-10-14T18:03:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-14T10:04:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-13T09:26:00.000+08:00

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?

2005-10-12T14:47:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-11T10:47:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-10T10:08:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-06T12:49:00.000+08:00

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

2005-10-04T11:01:00.000+08:00

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

2005-09-30T11:14:00.000+08:00

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

2005-09-26T15:17:00.000+08:00

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

2005-09-12T13:02:00.000+08:00

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"

2005-09-07T09:52:00.001+08:00

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

2005-09-01T13:26:00.000+08:00

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

2005-08-31T11:58:00.000+08:00

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

2005-08-29T11:11:00.000+08:00

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

2005-08-26T12:33:00.000+08:00

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

2005-08-24T12:15:00.000+08:00

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

2005-08-23T15:28:00.000+08:00

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?

2005-07-07T09:54:00.000+08:00

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

2005-07-01T11:56:00.000+08:00

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

2005-07-01T11:19:00.000+08:00

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

2005-07-01T11:14:00.000+08:00

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

2005-06-22T01:07:00.000+08:00

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

2005-06-21T19:52:00.000+08:00

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.

The so-called "Long Term Relationship" in Gay Parlance

2005-06-21T11:35:00.000+08:00

Posted elsewhere and edited for posting here ...

Long Term Relationsip or more commonly known by their initials LTR, is something, apparently, the most sought after kind of relationship that gays are pursuing. But is it really so?

People come into a relationship for three, or maybe four, reasons.

First, perhaps the most common reason, especially for gays, is really just sex, plain and simple.

However many will deny this is the reason. The evidence, on the other hand, is more compelling that anything you or anyone say. And thus I have concluded that the so-called LTR is merely an excuse for sex, and love was used, or abused, as a justification for lust.

And the evidence is simply this: the many stories of so-called gay LTR that dont last long, lasting from weeks to months and at most a couple of years. And even then in the latter most of time it has degenerated into a so-called 'open relationship'.

For sex is all about lust, and it is all about physical attraction and physical sensations, and such relationships founded entirely or mainly on such cannot last. I know, for I experienced such lusts first hand myself too, as I am sure many do also. After you have discovered someone, seen him naked, eaten his fruits, he no longer excites.

So strictly speaking such relationships are just extended ONS or sex-buddies.

The more interesting thing to do here is not to debate the fact but rather to ponder and speculate the reasons why people are averse to calling a spade a spade, ie to say openly that what they want in a relationship is sex. I can think of a few reasons.

One is the notion that ONS is bad. I have seen this sentiment expressed, some from religious perspectives, be it Buddhism or Christianity, but no one really asked themselves why it is so. Maybe it is just a hangover from the notions and values of traditional straight relationships where you are not suppose to screw your gal before you marry her. So sex outside of a 'marriage' is bad. And so people seeking sex, seek a so-called LTR, to be a cover to justify having sex, particularly that involving anal penetration in the case of gays.

And here I want to relate an incident. I was horny and met this guy. And we were proceeding beyond hand-holding, and into the process of comprehensive mutual discovery, but he hesitated saying that he will have sex only in a relationship. But then he has crossed the point of no return, and so he made up his mind on the spot that we are already in a relationship, ie to consider me already a boyfriend after only a few hours knowing me. But that was what he needed pscyhologically to go on to enjoy the physical. And after this point he abandon himself fully to the thrills, and it was the first time I walked on the beach naked hand in hand with another one naked.

I have also observed that usually it is bottoms who seek such LTR. Tops generally have less qualms about calling ONS, ONS. I may be wrong, but I think it is reasonable; and the reasons are, it is safer to stick to one cock; a cock is a cock, ie it does matter if it is the same cock, the thrill of your G-spot being hit is still as thrilling; and it is perceived it is ok for tops to have ONS but for btms to get fucked around is to be a slut.

So tops are not thought 'immoral' to have ONS, and thus tops give full rein to their thrill of 'discovering' people, many many people: a new face, a new bod, a new cock, a new ass, alway excites more the same old asshole. And then being tied down in an LTR is really a disadvantage. But people all cheat, and the long in the LTR is really something always negotiable, dependent on unknown and many factors - as in it "depends" - and thus ultimately non-enforceable and meaningless.

But whatever the reasons are, the fact of the matter remains that sex is a main reason for most gay relationships, the so-called LTR.

And I dare put forward that sex is also a major reason for straight relationships too, except that after fucking a gal there are consequences, and such do indeed evolved into marriage and maybe even love. But there are no consequences in a gay fuck - gay sex is free sex (and so you have bisexuals) - and so there is really no force or motivation to keep and to evolve the relationship further other than a sexual one, although gays in LTR say they do.

The second reason is companionship.

Here people come together for the mutual benefits of having a companion, someone who you give first priority to, and who has first-call privileges on your life, your time, your resources, your emotions, etc.

But there are various shades of grey in this relationship, as characterised by the type and degree of mutuality.

The mutuality type refers to the things shared. It can just be time, or thoughts or values, or feelings, or it may be entirely physical, from sharing a house, activities, and of course including sex. So when people say sex is part of the package in an LTR, they are thinking of such a relationship.

And so people can be companions without sharing everything. They share the things they want to share. It could just be time and activities and does not involved sex. An old married couple could be an example of such a relationship. Or it is could be on the other extreme where it is all physical, a house, such as sharing costs to buy a condo, making and sharing meals, mutual sexual gratification, or none. In a sense friends are a kind of companionship relation.

But the mutuality is the key here, ie it involves an exchange or a trade, a sharing: I give, you give, I fuck, you fuck. But if you stop giving, I stopped, and if I am no longer first priority in your life, so will you be dropped from having first call privileges.

The second factor is the degree or type of mutuality, ie how much do you 'pay' in that exchange. You can have at one extreme equality, same for same, degree for degree, ie the same things are traded and to the same amounts by both parties, something like 69.

On the other extreme, the relationship can be one where one party gives everything for just a little of another thing back, eg a sugar daddy/sugar son relationship. And some have classify this as a fourth reason for relationship: to extract maximal benefits for yourself, but I rather not and see it just as an extreme form of a companion relationship. The giver although being milked is getting something back too.

But of course when approaching this extreme, the trade or the mutual exchange may degenerate into prostitution, ie to trade away things non tradeable, or for things inappropriate or of relatively no value. Where such trades transit from being moral to immoral is not entirely clear, for in a sense we are all trading our bodies away everyday in our work: trading labour for money. It may be clear in the extreme, but murky elsewhere.

Lastly the third reason is love, true love.

And to me love is simply a relationship that relates to the other for the good of the other, and for no other reasons.

It does not need mutuality nor gratification of any sort, physical or otherwise.

And this is what distinguish true friends from mere friends, namely, if there are no benefits to you to be his friend, would you still be his friend?

If you see all relationships in terms of what you can get from it, whether you need him, or are you benefited, in one way or another, be it material, spiritual, knowledge, connections, or whatever, then you do not really love. And he is not really your friend. The other, even if you call him friend, is merely a means to an end, namely yours, and particularly one who puts you better than what you were before.

So again to reiterate you love solely for the sake of the other, and not for your benefits.

So to me the best test of true love is if the other person walks away from you and no longer call you friend, do you still consider him friend? Do you still care for him? Would you still give him your time, energy and effort? And would you still response to him when he is in need, whether or not he asked you for it?

Sounds like a tall order? an unrealistic, unworldly and impractical notion? or just plain delusion, a fairy tale or even madness? Well it may well be, and thus I also conclude that love is not common in so-called LTR, if at all, and perhaps never the real reason for any relationship between anyone in the real world, sexual or otherwise, straight or otherwise.

But I still believe in love.

That it is so uncommon only makes it far more precious, and no price then is too great to pay.

And true love can exist in a companionship too, ie where two person loves each other, each loving the other solely for his sake, unconditionally, unreservedly and unassumingly, each loving the other as himself, and without trade. That is true mutuality, and a great love.

But perhaps this happens only in fairy tales.

So when I hear some gay says he is seeking LTR, I never assumed that he seeks love, or, conversely, to presume he seeks sex, in an acceptable context, and/or companionship, until and unless proven otherwise.

And ironically true love may be more likely outside an LTR, and the only true LTR is actually friendship, something deemed of less value amongst gays than the so-called LTR.

A Friend Died

2005-06-21T11:25:00.000+08:00

My friend died recently.

I last saw him about a week before he died.

And I saw fear in his eyes, the fear of death.

I did not understand the fear, and I did not pause to ponder why then. Nor was I able to ask him then as he could not speak.

Now I never know how he felt at the point of death. I will always wonder if he was able to overcome his fear and have peace to face death.

For he is a Christian, one who was very much involved in all the church activities, from missionary excursions overseas, to various ministries inside and outside the church.

I would have thought he knew God, and is able to face death with confidence, assurance and peace.

But yet he feared.

Videoconference

2005-06-20T16:09:00.000+08:00

From a letter ...

LIM: How did your day go?

TAN: We did a videoconference with our US partners.

LIM: How was it?

TAN: Like MSN.

LIM: Was it necessary? I did telephone conferences before and it was sufficiently effective.

TAN: With video you can see facial expressions and body language, or their lack. Of course you hear the tone of the voice too.

LIM: But you need to know a person to interpret or even notice such signs?

TAN: There are some universal signs: a nod means yes, and not no. A wince means he is uncomfortable, a sigh a sign of frustration, and hesitancy may indicate he is unsure.

LIM: The subject being discussed, matters too I suppose. The phone conferences I had were on technical matters.

TAN: We were getting him to commit to his plans.

LIM: I think video conferencing can be as good as being there, but you still need to know the guy. I am sure you know that ONG guy.

TAN: Ya.

LIM: You can never believe what ONG says. He can say yes and then turn around and say he never meant it. Seen him lately?

TAN: Nope. Last heard he got married.

LIM: But no one was invited to any wedding.

TAN: There we rumours that he married illegally, namely to someone of the same sex.

LIM: I suspected that too, but let's leave him alone and not get entangled with him.

TAN: I agree. This guy we talked on videoconference is a new partner for us.

LIM: So you were trying to interpret someone you don’t know? How do you know his yes means a yes, or his no really means no?

TAN: That's no longer a video conferencing issue. Even if you see him face-to-face you cannot know what he means. You need to know him.

LIM: Do you not see the irony?

TAN: What do you mean?

LIM: If you have known him, he can just say yes or no, on the phone or even in an email, and it will be good enough.

TAN: When I was in National Service I often hear my Operational Officer and Signals Officer argue over the need for video conferencing in the field. The Operational Officer always insisted he needs it but the Signals Officer thinks otherwise.

LIM: Have you ever wondered how people talked before there was email or the telephone or even the telegraph?

TAN: I suppose you either talk by snail mail, also know as letters, which get delivered by horseback, or ships and trains, or you travel yourself to see each other face-to-face.

LIM: And today we have the mobile phone. And you can call anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world. And not to say SMS and voicemail, and MSN and ICQ, etc. And email has become like snail mail, slow and unresponsive, relatively.

TAN: Then it was certainly not interactive and not real time at all.

LIM: I cannot imagine how you can talk. You say something and you wait for months or years for a reply, if at all.

TAN: And in the meantime things happened, things come and go, and things changed daily.

LIM: And people changed too.

TAN: Certainly.

LIM: People may talk less then, but do you think they know each other less than we do today?

TAN: Perhaps not. I think there are more conflicts today then there were in the past.

LIM: Maybe there is another irony here. The more we talk, the less we know.

TAN: Or maybe the more we know, the more we hate each other.

LIM: And we can be seeing each other face-to-face daily, but yet remain strangers.

TAN: I read somewhere that even enemies at war talk to each other, but here our next-door neighbours avoid us deliberately.

LIM: Enemies talk to each other because the best way to know your enemy is to be his friend.

TAN: So we have another irony here: the one who knows you best is your enemy, and the one who you think is your friend, may not really know you.

LIM: This brings us back to the ONG character. We all know him very well indeed, but I don’t think anyone of us will call him a friend.

TAN: [Laughs]

LIM: So what shall we have for dinner?

TAN: The full course again, including dessert, just like everyday.

LIM: [Laughs]

True Love

2005-06-18T01:17:00.000+08:00

From Chatting with Someone on IRC ...

Teck: Get this into your head: I DO NOT LOVE you. Your pigheaded insistence irritates me, and you are making me hate you! Now fuck off!

Seng: You are missing the point here.

Teck: Whatever. I don't care for it. I care for nothing from you.

Seng: And I do not care for anyone to get anything into my head. I can see what's real and what's a delusion. Unlike you, I am more than ready to call a spade a spade, no matter how unwelcoming or unpleasant the facts may be.

Teck: Oh please! Dont give me any more of that bullshit! So it is a fact I do not love you! Now go away! Get out of my life! Is that not fucking clear to you? Stop bugging me!

Seng: And it is a fact too that I love you, and I can't help it nor stop it. Not even if you kill me.

Teck: You love me? Then give me what I want!

Seng: Not everything you want is good for you. I love you. I give what is good, and not necessarily what you want. If it cost me my life, so be it. Love don't count costs. I do not fear death, and so I can love truly.

Teck: What is good for me is what is good for me. I do not need you to tell me. I hear whatever and whomever I want to hear, and it is definitely not you! Get it? If what I want kills me, so too be it! I rather die than listen to you. My loathing of you is even greater than my fear of death itself. Is it not obvious you are now most obnoxious thing to me. And yes if you keep pushing I will have no qualms killing you, if only to stop hearing another word from you!

Seng: This is off course an extraordinary situation. We are not friends. We are not strangers. We are not even enemies, for enemies mutually hate each other. I cannot hate you, not ever. I can only love you.

Teck: Love! Love! Love! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! I am sick and tired hearing you say you love me endlessly and shamelessly! It makes my skin crawl, my hair stand, and my heart turn to hate you more and more!

Seng: Then I wont say it anymore. I let my acts speak for themselves. So if you see a child about to be hit by a car, will you not do everything in your capacity to save that child? If the child you saved then turns around and say he hates you, that he rather be hit by the car then be saved, how then do you feel?

Teck: If the child wants to kill himself, it is his choice and you ought to respect it.

Seng: There are right and wrong choices, and child may not know how to choose. What you just said illustrates the very reason why I am what I am to you, despite your fierce, cruel, and unjustified rejection of me. For my heart is much pained and distraught at the corruption you have become to say such things. So even if I fail, even if I die, yet I will strive, to stem the tide, to be the lone and forlorn voice to speak against the corruption that is in the world, that sweeps you along and seduces you with its false promises of pleasures and happy life.

Teck: Oh fuck! Stop it! Speak another word and I will kill you! And that's not a threat. It is a fact!

Seng: If you kill me it will only vindicate me and affirm what I have been saying all along. You are no longer who you are. Now you cant tell good from bad. Good is bad to you, and bad, good; right is wrong, wrong, right; and love is hate, and hate, love. And even as you reject my love, I reject your hate. And whereas you fear my love, I fear not your hate.

Teck then turned sharply and walked away, hard and fast. Seng, a little surprised, started of after Teck and soon caught up, and stretched out to take hold of Teck's hand. As their hands touched, they both felt a tingle, a shiver ran through them, and they gasped and stopped dead in their tracks, still holding hands ...

Seng: It's a long time since I last held your hands ...

Teck turned, and they looked deep into each other's eyes, and were silent for a time.

Seng [eyes closed, whispering]: Teck can you - for both our sakes - please step out of yourself, and take a look at yourself. Can you ask yourself have you ever hated someone like the way you hated me? Can you not see that your hate for me is unfounded, unreasoned and unreasonable. And have you rejected a friend they way you rejected me? Who have not hurt his friend in one way or another, but is that sufficient reason for you to utterly reject me, or anyone else, as you have done?

I cannot accept it.

It cannot be so and it must not be so, both for you and for me: for me because it is unjustified, and for you because it makes you unrighteous. We both needs restoration, and it is in our hands to do it.

God can forgive our sins against Him, but only we can forgive each other our sins against each other.

Why do you hate me so? Why? Why? Why? You must ask why. You cannot run away from these questions. Please dont run away but stay and work at it. Please dont say there is no need. Please dont say you are not interested. These things are you and your real self. You must get to know yourself as you really are.

And this is one reason and one role I am to be to you and for you. I am to be with you and to help you think through and sort out the mess that is you. I am to reflect back to you what you are, help you come to terms with yourself, and to see the truth about youself and thereby become free of yourself and then to go on to become the beautiful you I have seen from the beginning. You are yet a caterpillar but I have seen the butterfly you are to be.

In a sense it was good for you to express all that hate and anger at me. And maybe I am the only one who can draw this out from you. And now you can see who you are. Now is a time of healing. Now is the time for building. Now is the time for growing.

Maybe it is your psychological response and coping mechanism to this strange thing called love, something you say you seek, but you dont really know what it is, and when you sensed it, actually fears it.

Love is something that makes you drunk, transform you into someone strange, and transport you to places unimagined and unimaginable, and open your eyes to see things unseen.

But what you have sought was sex and not love, mere physical gratification and not the spiritual union of two souls becoming one. So you feared it, and you ran away from it, and when it comes after you, you put up your defences.

And one of which is rejection. As you have no rational reason to reject it, you responded with rage and aggression, and created this unfounded hostility and hatred, to give you a sense of justification for your rejection.

But you know it is love, and instead of responding to my love, you exhibited transference. The emotions and desires due to me are unconsciously shifted to another person, such as you wearing the orange T-shirt - which I very much like to see you in - hoping to attract someone who you have thought was very much like me. And then to consider John as a friend forever, when we are suppose to be friends forever. And then of course you also exhibited many times over, denial and self-deception.

But now you have had the taste of the world and what gay relationships and all its sex are all about. You have eaten as much as you wanted. But sex is a food that will never satiate. Anonymous and mere sex gives you a high, but a deep sense of emptiness overwhelms you after it, which will only draw you back to more empty sex. And the circle turn visciously, and you are trapped. Do you not want to get out of this meaningless, futile and wasted life?

So Teck, please hear me, hear me truly, if only just this once.

Teck: OK. Just this once. I have to go off now. I am tired. Let me sleep on it. I promised I will get back to you.

Teck walked away. Seng stood and watched until Teck disappeared from sight.

Some Trivia

2005-06-16T16:30:00.000+08:00

We Believe What We Want To Believe

2005-06-16T11:41:00.000+08:00

As reported on the BBC website, the scientific evidence is:

The report also said her brain was only half its normal size at her death.

She was incapable of surviving without her feeding tube, Mr Throgmartin said, adding that she was blind and incapable of thinking, feeling or interacting with her environment.

"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," he said.

On the other hand, elsewhere it is reported:

Nevertheless, attorney David Gibbs III said Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, continue to believe she was not in a vegetative state and questioned the conclusion that she was blind.

The finding that she was blind counters a widely seen videotape released by her parents of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.

The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness.

What this case illustrates, and reinforces, is a persistent human trait, or limitation, namely that it is not so much what we see that matters - as ilustrated in two ways here - but rather what we believed.

First the scientists and doctors see a brain shrunk in half and severely damaged.

On the other hand the parents see a face, eyes, and its apparent conscious and volitional responses to stimuli of familiar voices.

These observations in and of themselves dont say a thing. What they mean really depends on how we interprete them, which in turn is derived from our perspective, which itself is mostly shaped by our beliefs.

If we believe that brain tissues cannot grow back itself, and that only a normal sized brain can function normally, then we conclude that Schiavo is good as a non-person, ie a vegetable.

But if you believe we have not known all there is in life, and that there are mysteries of life beyond our meagre knowledge in medical science, then anything is yet possible for Schiavo.

But in real life sometimes we have to take decisions, practical decisions, and requires that such irreconciliable positions be resolved. We then need some means, just or otherwise, to do so.

And one means is to base on what we know, albeit our knowledge being incomplete, imperfect and even wrong. For we do not know what we do not know. And as long as you admit to the possibility of anything unknown, then any sort of theories no matter how incredulous, as long as it cannot be disproved, have to be acknowledged, and that does not help the situation.

It is the same with human justice. It is not true justice. What is being exercised and enforced is the law, namely rules, eg of the jury and of the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Michael Jackson may well have committed all those acts for which he is accused. But as far as the evidence goes, the jury cannot say that there is no reasonable doubt, and therefore, as defined by the law, he is innocent. And that's mere human justice for you.

And that is life.

But there is yet true justice.

Of Choices and Respect

2005-06-13T12:30:00.000+08:00

"I have made my choice and I expect you to respect it."

And that started me thinking, and below is an edited excerpt of what's in a letter as a response ...

Respect is to be earned not demanded.

But then not all respect earned is important or of value anyway.

There will always be fools, flatterers and sycophants all around who are more than willing to lavish praise and good wishes on whatever you choose, be it good or bad, detrimental or beneficial, wise or foolish.

I rather not have such respect from such fools.

I rather earned their scorn and derision; and choose anytime and without reservations, the rebuke and correction of the wise, then the praises of fools.

And to earn any respect that matters, you must be able to stand up to your choice, to justify it, and be clear and certain that it is wise.

That the outcome of one's choice is uncertain is not an issue as there are human limits in knowing what will happen tomorrow. But rather it is the awareness of such limitations and making decisions and choosing within the boundaries and the implications of such unknowns and unknowables, which is definite evidence that one have been wise.

But if you make a choice blindly and unable to say why, but rather to obstruct, by saying that there is no need or that you do not want to think about how and why you made the choice; or to obfuscate by saying things like there were many factors, without able or wanting to enumerate them nor ranked them by importance; or to be evasive by saying that it depends, and again without able or wanting to say what were those things depended upon, when clearly the choice was made in the past and what were depended are historical facts; or to deter by throwing a temper and getting angry and unreasonably pigheaded; or finally by becoming a fool altogether by saying that we should not think too much, if at all, then your choice deserves no respect whatsoever.

And I will also certainly not respect your choice if it is foolish, harmful to you or others, uninformed or based on fallacies and falsehoods, and especially when it is deliberately chosen, perhaps to spite, or in contempt, or to annoy and to frustrate.

So in conclusion that you choose is NO BIG DEAL at all!

For even fools, mad men, and evil people, choose.

Exercising a choice is no basis for respect at all whatsoever.

It is what and how and why you choose what you chose that is the true matter.

And upon this basis is then your choice to be condemned and rejected, or to be accepted, praised, respected and emulated.

That people ought to be respected regardless of their choices, as long as they choose, is an example of the fallacy of popular wisdom: falsehood disguising itself in humanistically persuasive, flatterring and lofty truth-sounding language. And my theory is that this so-called wisdom has its roots in the American political scene from their popular marketing of democracy to make people come out to vote, ie vote or choose and as a reward you know that you are respected for it: a feel-good temptation appealing to human vanity.

It is obvious that this so called wisdom is not true. For can you respect my choice to kill because I don’t like you? Surely not!

Therefore it is not an unconditional thing. Not ANY choice anyone made is to be accorded automatic respect. No! There are conditions upon which some choices are to be respected and others to be rejected.

And what I am saying is that this condition is why and how a choice is made, their reasons, and their justification in terms of future outcomes or some other terms.

So if you want me to respect your choice - if, in the first place, my respect is something you deemed important to you for whatever reasons - then you had better be clear WHY you choose what you chose.

And if you obstruct, obfuscate, evade, deter, and be a fool, then I have to make my own conclusions for myself.

Lives' Paths

2005-05-30T09:21:00.000+08:00

Edited and expanded from my original post elsewhere ...

Each life of ours is like a path: a path we walked, leaving behind a trail - which is our personal history - and continuing this trail with every step we take, in each and every moment, in each and every day. (And so also in some ways, we are each a unique individual, for no one can share every moment of our history; even two identical twins are two different persons.)

We may not see where we are heading. At best we may have a glimpse, but only of the immediate surroundings. But a step we must take, inexorably, whether we do it volitionally or let "nature takes its course" and let "nature" carries you along. There is no "sitting on your ass" in this path of life: either take the step or the step is taken for you.

You can be like a leaf floating on a stream. You can let the stream carry you along. Then you may swiftly flow downstream, over rapids and falls, joining other streams, then rivers, and maybe eventually you reach the open seas. Or the stream may carry you into an eddy where you swirl endlessly until you sink to the bottom, or you may get caught in some obstacle in the stream and there you remain till you decay.

But you can not be like the leaf too. You can rather try to be a boat where you are the rower. Now over and above letting the stream carries you where it may, you can row upstream or stop on the bank, taking breaks now and then. You can deliberately explore nooks and sidestreams, you can go where you eye sees or your ear hears. You can even get off the boat altogether.

However if you are caught in a strong current or a raging rapids you may have no choice but merely to let the stream carry you and hope or try to stop yourself from crashing or from capsizing. But even so disasters do happen in our life.

And such is our path in life.

And also our life's paths crossed each others, like ours - you, the reader, and I - at this moment, albeit virtually. It is sometimes momentarily, sometimes for a while, and sometimes life's paths run parallel or keep criss-crossing each other for years, such as your school or work mates, and certainly your spouses'.

Now in a relationship, three things can happen to our life's paths..

One, for whatever reasons, you can make your paths parallel, as alluded above, to each other's. You accommodate each other, and such accommodation is apparently not difficult if you’re already walking the same ways - and so you have people looking for people with common interests.

But then there is no guarantee whatsoever common interests remain common tomorrow. Really what you are doing is to just make the best of what you see in the here and now. For tomorrow you give yourselves some assurances such as trying to share a common vision. But then a common vision does not mean common paths, if they can remain common in time in the first place.

Secondly, one of you can abandon your path altogether, or literally make yourself submissive to the other completely. This is perhaps have been normal in marriage, such as the female taking on the male's name, to show that she have become his 'property'- a traditional notion, but nonetheless a valid concept for a relationship, and something more secured then merely being parallel and accommodating.

But it is unfair and unequal, in the sense that one of the party lose his or her life in the other, not an entirely equitable model. And again the guarantee is not there, for the submissive party may no longer submit, or the dominant party found his or her perfect partner, or just a better submissive partner. And then of course needs changed as we all know, and people quarrel, and small difference becomes huge insurmountables, etc, etc - and hence you have divorce in marriage.

The third thing that can happen is when both parties abandon their paths, and both together and jointly go to make a new path, a new life, from scratch.

And this new path is something that either, on their own, will not and cannot walk. Only together, and specifically only with that particular other, can this path be created and walked. And furthermore this new joint and common path is better in all sense of the word than either previous paths on their own.

And it is fair, equitable and 100% common, for their is no individual histories to carry along, which can never be shared, but now you start from day one, together.

And you are no longer the person you were. For you are no longer you or I, but we and us, the new 'person', a new creation, a new being - something that your parents did not give birth too. And as the bible puts it, for this reason the man shall leave his father and mother. For both person are no longer their parents'.

Imagine in all situations and to all people instead of saying I you say we: this then will be the perfect union of persons, the ideal marriage. And I also think it has nothing to do with sex or gender and it is applicable to any two persons.

So then the question now is how do I know that I have found this person for the perfect marriage?

Using the third model as as template, we can ask the following questions. For example, are both willing to abandon their lives and be a new creature? Is the new life with him/her something you otherwise cannot and will not walk? Is this new life far far superior to anything you had or even could have imagined? Do you feel that you have become what you are destined to be?

If the answers are all positive, then it is a possible indication. Or put more precisely, if you get a negative answer to any of the question, it is a veto, and you know he/she is not the one.

But even so what is the guarantee?

Well firstly the guarantee is in the life itself, the new life. Would anyone abandon something for something lesser? Would anyone kill himself, metaphorically speaking, for something of less value than life itself? And what greater need is there than life itself?

Arguments, common interests, irritation, bodily physical changes, changing "needs", even two-timing or adultery, are, in the final analysis, all irrelevant issues. For the sake of being we and us, all these things are only something to be worked at, challenges to be overcome, tests to make us strong and revealed who we truly are and can be.

And the life will continually be interesting, just as your own life is - or should be - continually interesting everyday. Every day should count in your life shouldn’t it? You should be wiser, know more, etc with every passing day. If you are not then are you living?

So it is the same when you become a new life as we and us. You should be living everyday and that is the reason for the life, or for the relationship, to go on. It feeds on itself: life's for life.

Yes! I will still love the one I love even if he/she commits adultery! even multiple adulteries. Love, the bible says, is as strong as death! Call it folly if you want. I only concur with you, and say that love is foolish. So if you want to love you had better prepared to be a fool.

But ultimately there is one sure guarantee, namely God.

There is no way you can trust man, or woman.

No promises of commitment really count for anything. For you promised based on what you know and think today. Tomorrow something happens and even though you want to keep the promise you cannot. It is like I promised to bring you out for a birthday treat, and on that day I was recalled for NS mobilisation. The non-fulfillment is understandable, but it is still a non-fulfillment of promise. I want better assurances than mere explanations.

And this assurance is God. Love is a gift from God. And if he can bring two people, initially strangers, together, surely he can keep it for us, even forever. And so, true love is a three way relationship. You need and have a third party, a matchmaker and a guarantor, namely God.

And that is the absolute confidence and assurance I have in love.

Sex and Love, Food and Life

2005-05-29T21:36:00.000+08:00

Extracted and edited from a letter ...

The other thing was something I raised, namely the thought on sex and love.

As sex is to food, so is love to life.

We eat to live, and not live to eat, just as we work to live, and not live to work.

So when you told me you spending such long hours at work, it is symptomatic that something is not right in your life. Either you have no life or you are avoiding it.

But back to sex and love: correspondingly sex is for love, and not love for sex.

No matter how fantastic the fuck the top gave you, it is, at the end of the day, still empty. And then the best ever will never be good enough; the next time you seek an even better best.

It is like food. Like the ancient Romans or the Chinese among the rich and the elite. Their food becomes more and more exotic, eg bear's paw, or parrot meat, etc. It is just the nature of human beings, as long as it is physical we can never be satiated, for we not merely physical beings.

This is because the satisfaction sought for is not in the physical realm. It is like thirsting for a drink and you approached what you thought was water, which later turned out to be a mirage.

But on the other hand, when you are with someone special even simple bread and wine can be a most delightful and satisfying meal. I do not know if you have had such an experience.

But this you surely know: you find it hard to take dinner alone. Thus it is not the food that really is the matter, but rather who you are having dinner with.

And so it is with sex: it is not the sex that matter but whether there was love. In fact if there is love there may even be no need for sex.

And then of course there is no such thing as good sex. There is only whether there is love and the love is true. If there is then any sex, no matter how simple, eg just hands-holding, will be good, even very good.

And to continue the analogy of food, the reason why there is fasting in religion, is to make yourself aware that life is not for food. So similarly there are sexual fasts too, with the same symbolism, namely life is not just for sex.

Life is for life, and life is for love. Food is to make this life possible, and sex is to express this love, physically.

And that leads to another point, namely that love need not be expressed only physically. In fact there need not be any physical expression at all for love to be true. For surely there is still love between two old couple.

But then again you are at the stage of life when sex, in and of itself, is already exciting and enjoyable. It is like a kid just given the freedom to eat all the ice cream he wants in the world. So he has to eat; and Love can wait. So enjoy then! :-)