And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
-Jeremiah 29:13
The problem of course lies with "with all your heart". Is it really possible in our fallen nature to seek God with our full heart? The common saying is that the mind is willing but the flesh is weak. Yet this is not completely true. The flesh is obviously weak, but how can we be completely certain that the mind is willing?
Even when I think "God reveal yourself to me!", I also know that somewhere deep within the recesses of my mind there is a part of me that desires to have things my own way. Like St Augustine said in his confessions:
As a youth I prayed, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Thus it is not only in God's grace that we are accepted as children, but also in his grace that we are able to seek him in the first place. The calvinists therefore do have a point I think.
However, if the answer is simply to place our faith in God, how can we know for certain that our faith is genuine. Or I suppose, how much faith should we have in our own faith?
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Prayer of St Francis
- Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
- Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
- Where there is injury, pardon.
- Where there is doubt, faith.
- Where there is despair, hope.
- Where there is darkness, light.
- Where there is sadness, joy.
- O Divine Master,
- grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
- to be understood, as to understand;
- to be loved, as to love.
- For it is in giving that we receive.
- It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
- and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
- Amen.
Now - here is my secret:
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.
Douglas Coupland, Life After God
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.
Douglas Coupland, Life After God
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Proof vs Experience in Christianity
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. -C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
Of course even before Lewis, G. K. Chesterton already acknowledged that concept when he said:
God is like the sun; you cannot look at it, but without it, you cannot look at anything else.
This would imply that the value of Christianity lies not in its irrefutable proof, but the lens it provides us to view our own existence. You do not try to prove Christianity, you accept it as true and see how through that everything else fits into place. "Taste and see that the Lord is Good" says the Psalmist. This is why we do not bring people to Christ by elaborate arguments, but testify how through Christ our lives have changed. It requires not just convincing, but a total change in mindset of the person.
Of course logically speaking, Christianity works because it is true. It is not true because it works. It is unfortunate that due to our own limits, it seems that Christ can only be known through the latter.
Of course even before Lewis, G. K. Chesterton already acknowledged that concept when he said:
God is like the sun; you cannot look at it, but without it, you cannot look at anything else.
This would imply that the value of Christianity lies not in its irrefutable proof, but the lens it provides us to view our own existence. You do not try to prove Christianity, you accept it as true and see how through that everything else fits into place. "Taste and see that the Lord is Good" says the Psalmist. This is why we do not bring people to Christ by elaborate arguments, but testify how through Christ our lives have changed. It requires not just convincing, but a total change in mindset of the person.
Of course logically speaking, Christianity works because it is true. It is not true because it works. It is unfortunate that due to our own limits, it seems that Christ can only be known through the latter.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
"Nonsense! " said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. "Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for, that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!"
"It is you who are unpoetical," replied the poet Syme. "If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street, or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!"
"Must you go?" inquired Gregory sarcastically.
"I tell you," went on Syme with passion, "that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hair-breadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word 'Victoria', it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed 'Victoria'; it is the victory of Adam."
- G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday
Wish I could feel that way every time I took the MRT. Einstein might have been right when he postulated that there were only two ways to live life. "One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." Rather compelling, yet I do not think it is that easy to seperate the two.
"It is you who are unpoetical," replied the poet Syme. "If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street, or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!"
"Must you go?" inquired Gregory sarcastically.
"I tell you," went on Syme with passion, "that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hair-breadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word 'Victoria', it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed 'Victoria'; it is the victory of Adam."
- G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday
Wish I could feel that way every time I took the MRT. Einstein might have been right when he postulated that there were only two ways to live life. "One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." Rather compelling, yet I do not think it is that easy to seperate the two.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Some Reflections on Worship
While attending the Maundy Thursday service at church I ended up reading the "Directions For Singing" in the United Methodist Hymnal, which then became a distraction throughout the rest of the service. Just so I won't feel so bad about my lack of attention and reverence during the service I guess I'd better put down some thoughts on hymn singing and worship in general. Some of the things John Wesley said about hymn singing that I found especially meaningful:
III. Sing all. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
IV. Sing lustfully and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
V. Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
And most importantly:
VII. Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away by the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.
There are a few words that are translated as "worship" in the bible. First is the hebrew word "Shachah" which means "to bow down, make obeisance, reverence, to beseech humbly". Next are three Greek words "Proskuneo", "Latreuno" and "Sebomai" which mean basically "to kiss towards", "to serve or to render religious service" and "to fear or hold in awe" respectively. Thus I guess a general definition of worship would be to express love and ascribe glory to God.
With such a general definition it becomes apparent that worship can occur in many (and I guess almost any) forms. This I suppose is one of the main reasons why currently there are so many different forms of "worship services" in churches. Now in contrast to the typical orthodox style of worship involving hymn singing and scripted prayer we have Christian rock music, people bursting into tongues, dancing and jumping about in more charismatic services. After all we are all free to glorify God in any way we choose right?
While I do agree that personal worship can occur in almost an infinite number of possibilities, I still do believe that personal worship and worship in a "worship service" at church are completely different. In the above quotations it is seen that Wesley called people to "join with the congregation" and "strive to unite your voices together". This is something that I strongly believe. That a church service is not so much about a personal time of worship with God but more of a communal time of worship where the church joins in unity to worship God as the Body of Christ. Therefore it is not so much how I choose to worship God, but how we can all praise God together "so as to make one clear melodious sound". This is why it always disturbs me slightly when in the middle of a worship service random people start jumping or dancing or shouting or blurting out in tongues. While I do not deny that these are valid expressions of worship, it becomes unedifying when it begins to cause the person to stick out from the crowd and perhaps distract other worshipers. Such things might "destroy the harmony" of the worship service. I am not against personal worship. I simply believe that personal worship can be expressed more outside of the church service in every other aspect of our lives.
I also believe that we should all be cautious of the idea that we can worship God any way we want. While any form of worship might be acceptable to God, the attitude in which we deliver the worship is important. It always troubles me slightly that when we say we prefer this form of worship over that form, it somehow makes the worship more about us. In the end are we seeking to glorify God or enjoy singing the songs that we like? While I can appreciate both the hymns sung in more orthodox services and the songs sung in more charismatic "youthful" services, I still find myself drawn more towards hymns. This is because I find the words in hymns to have so much more meaning than most (but not all) contemporary songs. If we are to "Have an eye to God in every word we sing", then it helps that the words in the songs are strongly rooted in doctrine and theology which shine forth when we sing them. Yet I realise that after awhile I am so enthralled by the beauty of the hymns that sometimes the beautiful words and meaning of the hymns actually distract me from truly worshiping God. Which is why I believe Wesley was wise when he told people to "aim at pleasing him more than yourself" and "attend strictly to the sense of what you sing".
This however provides an interesting dilemma. Is it wrong for us to choose methods of worship that we are more comfortable with since in it lies the possibility of our hearts being "carried away by the sound"?
O worship the King, all glorious above,
O gratefully sing God's power and God's love;
our shield and defender, the Ancient of Days,
pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.
-UMH 73
III. Sing all. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
IV. Sing lustfully and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
V. Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
And most importantly:
VII. Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away by the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.
There are a few words that are translated as "worship" in the bible. First is the hebrew word "Shachah" which means "to bow down, make obeisance, reverence, to beseech humbly". Next are three Greek words "Proskuneo", "Latreuno" and "Sebomai" which mean basically "to kiss towards", "to serve or to render religious service" and "to fear or hold in awe" respectively. Thus I guess a general definition of worship would be to express love and ascribe glory to God.
With such a general definition it becomes apparent that worship can occur in many (and I guess almost any) forms. This I suppose is one of the main reasons why currently there are so many different forms of "worship services" in churches. Now in contrast to the typical orthodox style of worship involving hymn singing and scripted prayer we have Christian rock music, people bursting into tongues, dancing and jumping about in more charismatic services. After all we are all free to glorify God in any way we choose right?
While I do agree that personal worship can occur in almost an infinite number of possibilities, I still do believe that personal worship and worship in a "worship service" at church are completely different. In the above quotations it is seen that Wesley called people to "join with the congregation" and "strive to unite your voices together". This is something that I strongly believe. That a church service is not so much about a personal time of worship with God but more of a communal time of worship where the church joins in unity to worship God as the Body of Christ. Therefore it is not so much how I choose to worship God, but how we can all praise God together "so as to make one clear melodious sound". This is why it always disturbs me slightly when in the middle of a worship service random people start jumping or dancing or shouting or blurting out in tongues. While I do not deny that these are valid expressions of worship, it becomes unedifying when it begins to cause the person to stick out from the crowd and perhaps distract other worshipers. Such things might "destroy the harmony" of the worship service. I am not against personal worship. I simply believe that personal worship can be expressed more outside of the church service in every other aspect of our lives.
I also believe that we should all be cautious of the idea that we can worship God any way we want. While any form of worship might be acceptable to God, the attitude in which we deliver the worship is important. It always troubles me slightly that when we say we prefer this form of worship over that form, it somehow makes the worship more about us. In the end are we seeking to glorify God or enjoy singing the songs that we like? While I can appreciate both the hymns sung in more orthodox services and the songs sung in more charismatic "youthful" services, I still find myself drawn more towards hymns. This is because I find the words in hymns to have so much more meaning than most (but not all) contemporary songs. If we are to "Have an eye to God in every word we sing", then it helps that the words in the songs are strongly rooted in doctrine and theology which shine forth when we sing them. Yet I realise that after awhile I am so enthralled by the beauty of the hymns that sometimes the beautiful words and meaning of the hymns actually distract me from truly worshiping God. Which is why I believe Wesley was wise when he told people to "aim at pleasing him more than yourself" and "attend strictly to the sense of what you sing".
This however provides an interesting dilemma. Is it wrong for us to choose methods of worship that we are more comfortable with since in it lies the possibility of our hearts being "carried away by the sound"?
O worship the King, all glorious above,
O gratefully sing God's power and God's love;
our shield and defender, the Ancient of Days,
pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.
-UMH 73
Monday, April 4, 2011
On The Merits of Post-Modernism And The Limits of Christian Apologetics
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
-1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Recently, postmodernism has been drawing a fair amount of flak from Christian circles. It is not uncommon to hear in talks by preachers and apologists alike something along the lines of "In this postmodern day and age..", followed by some way in which the propagation of the gospel is impeded. However does postmodernism in itself really oppose Christianity? This is something that I wish to examine further in this post.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is often held to be a "mood" that emerged after the modern era (Post + Modern). After the enlightenment which celebrated the use of science and reason to probe the mysteries of the cosmos, it became apparent that reason and science were inadequate to provide a full unified understanding of the universe and the meaning of life. It was from this realisation that postmodernism gradually emerged, advocating skepticism, relativism and the absence of objective truth.
Postmodernism vs Christian Apologetics?
Christianity's aversion to postmodernism is not altogether unexpected. Many who hold postmodern ideals of skepticism and relativism scoff at Christianity, believing its assertion of God as an objective reference for truth, meaning and morality to be dogmatic and arrogant. Therefore now many Christian apologists and theologians have taken it upon themselves to prove Christianity right and postmodernism wrong.
One of the most popular arguments against postmodernism goes something along the line of this:
If you make a statement "everything is relative", you must ask yourself whether that statement you just made is relative too. If it is relative then that statement is not always true to begin with implying that some things are not relative. If that statement is false, it also means that not everything is relative. The statement kind of self destructs on itself. Thus objective truth must exist because it is impossible to deny it.
The argument is rather compelling, yet to me it has also always seemed to be a bit of a cop out or a cheap shot. However on further analysis, I do not think the argument really damages the postmodernist view. Once you establish that some form of objective truth must exist, there still remains the problem of deciding exactly what that objective truth is. Christianity says "aha!" that objective truth is God and his will for mankind. Yet what merits Christianity to be chosen as that objective truth as compared to other ideologies and religions? In the end it appears that even if somehow objective truth does exist, it cannot be known. Doesn't that sound rather postmodernist?
Christian apologists have come up with various elaborate and elegant arguments for the existence of God. However, in the end all proofs eventually lead to propositions that themselves cannot be proven. The postmodernist does have a point when he asserts that everything is known because we want to know. Now I acknowledge the that writing this post would be pointless if reason and meaning are invalid. Thus it is my view that everything is known not just because we want to know but also because we need to. In the end choosing an ontic, a point of reference, and taking it as axiomatic is something everyone has to do. Apologetics has only served to present Christianity as a reasonable option out of many.
Validity of Apologetics?
However is the current practice of justifying the Christian faith using reason and logic truly in line with what Christianity teaches? The most common justifications usually comes in the form of 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have". Apologetics has done so by taking on skeptics and intellectuals with their own weapons, debating them with reasoned arguments and logical frameworks. Yet one must question whether this is effective or even necessary.
Turning to the piece of scripture at the start of this post, it is apparent that Paul is questioning the wisdom of man as compared to that of God. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" says the Lord in Isaiah 55:9. The Jews looked to signs and wonders for proof of God's existence while the Greeks looked for wisdom. Both with their respective criteria for proof were unable to comprehend the Gospel which to them was "foolishness".
Christianity does not work because it is the most logically consistent or because it can be proven without a doubt. All the most intricate reasoning and well crafted arguments are useless if God himself does not act. Notice that in Acts 16:14 it is the lord that "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message".
Conclusion
When Job went through his period of intense suffering, all the reasons that his friends gave him for his plight did not satisfy him. Even when God himself appeared before Job, God did not give Job a reason for his suffering even though we as readers know about the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book. Instead of providing answers he proceeds to question Job:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
-Job 38:3-4
This is followed by a long list of questions which we as humans obviously have no answer. In the end Job is forced to admit that many things are obscured from him, yet he is still satisfied by God's presence.
This is why i do think postmodernism has its merits. The truth is that there are many things we do not, and will never comprehend. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". Whatever logics are reasoning we apply in hope of achieving objective truth fall short. In a way postmodernism does cause people to doubt the objectivity of Christianity. Yet confronted with the realisation of one's limitations and fallibility in this strange universe, it also creates the room for one to turn to God by FAITH. Afterall " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
-1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Recently, postmodernism has been drawing a fair amount of flak from Christian circles. It is not uncommon to hear in talks by preachers and apologists alike something along the lines of "In this postmodern day and age..", followed by some way in which the propagation of the gospel is impeded. However does postmodernism in itself really oppose Christianity? This is something that I wish to examine further in this post.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is often held to be a "mood" that emerged after the modern era (Post + Modern). After the enlightenment which celebrated the use of science and reason to probe the mysteries of the cosmos, it became apparent that reason and science were inadequate to provide a full unified understanding of the universe and the meaning of life. It was from this realisation that postmodernism gradually emerged, advocating skepticism, relativism and the absence of objective truth.
Postmodernism vs Christian Apologetics?
Christianity's aversion to postmodernism is not altogether unexpected. Many who hold postmodern ideals of skepticism and relativism scoff at Christianity, believing its assertion of God as an objective reference for truth, meaning and morality to be dogmatic and arrogant. Therefore now many Christian apologists and theologians have taken it upon themselves to prove Christianity right and postmodernism wrong.
One of the most popular arguments against postmodernism goes something along the line of this:
If you make a statement "everything is relative", you must ask yourself whether that statement you just made is relative too. If it is relative then that statement is not always true to begin with implying that some things are not relative. If that statement is false, it also means that not everything is relative. The statement kind of self destructs on itself. Thus objective truth must exist because it is impossible to deny it.
The argument is rather compelling, yet to me it has also always seemed to be a bit of a cop out or a cheap shot. However on further analysis, I do not think the argument really damages the postmodernist view. Once you establish that some form of objective truth must exist, there still remains the problem of deciding exactly what that objective truth is. Christianity says "aha!" that objective truth is God and his will for mankind. Yet what merits Christianity to be chosen as that objective truth as compared to other ideologies and religions? In the end it appears that even if somehow objective truth does exist, it cannot be known. Doesn't that sound rather postmodernist?
Christian apologists have come up with various elaborate and elegant arguments for the existence of God. However, in the end all proofs eventually lead to propositions that themselves cannot be proven. The postmodernist does have a point when he asserts that everything is known because we want to know. Now I acknowledge the that writing this post would be pointless if reason and meaning are invalid. Thus it is my view that everything is known not just because we want to know but also because we need to. In the end choosing an ontic, a point of reference, and taking it as axiomatic is something everyone has to do. Apologetics has only served to present Christianity as a reasonable option out of many.
Validity of Apologetics?
However is the current practice of justifying the Christian faith using reason and logic truly in line with what Christianity teaches? The most common justifications usually comes in the form of 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have". Apologetics has done so by taking on skeptics and intellectuals with their own weapons, debating them with reasoned arguments and logical frameworks. Yet one must question whether this is effective or even necessary.
Turning to the piece of scripture at the start of this post, it is apparent that Paul is questioning the wisdom of man as compared to that of God. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" says the Lord in Isaiah 55:9. The Jews looked to signs and wonders for proof of God's existence while the Greeks looked for wisdom. Both with their respective criteria for proof were unable to comprehend the Gospel which to them was "foolishness".
Christianity does not work because it is the most logically consistent or because it can be proven without a doubt. All the most intricate reasoning and well crafted arguments are useless if God himself does not act. Notice that in Acts 16:14 it is the lord that "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message".
Conclusion
When Job went through his period of intense suffering, all the reasons that his friends gave him for his plight did not satisfy him. Even when God himself appeared before Job, God did not give Job a reason for his suffering even though we as readers know about the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book. Instead of providing answers he proceeds to question Job:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
-Job 38:3-4
This is followed by a long list of questions which we as humans obviously have no answer. In the end Job is forced to admit that many things are obscured from him, yet he is still satisfied by God's presence.
This is why i do think postmodernism has its merits. The truth is that there are many things we do not, and will never comprehend. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". Whatever logics are reasoning we apply in hope of achieving objective truth fall short. In a way postmodernism does cause people to doubt the objectivity of Christianity. Yet confronted with the realisation of one's limitations and fallibility in this strange universe, it also creates the room for one to turn to God by FAITH. Afterall " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Anything outside yourself, this you can see and apply your logic to it. But it’s a human trait that when we encounter personal problems, these things most deeply personal are the most difficult to bring out for our logic to scan. We tend to flounder around, blaming everything but the actual, deep-seated thing that’s really chewing on us.
- Frank Herbert, Dune
- Frank Herbert, Dune
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Red, Blue and Gold
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!"
- Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra
I think I will always be proud to have come from ACS.
Looking back I cant believe that in P5 I actually entertained thoughts of going to Raffles. Thankfully I succumbed to the ACS indoctrination that Rafflesians were geeky, disgusting and altogether queer creatures. Of course now I know that is not completely true. But the colours Green, Black and White just aren't as regal as Red, Blue and Gold.
Also, it riles me slightly that Justin Bieber shares the same birthday as ACS. Almost as much as him sharing the same first name as me, but not quite...
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!"
- Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra
I think I will always be proud to have come from ACS.
Looking back I cant believe that in P5 I actually entertained thoughts of going to Raffles. Thankfully I succumbed to the ACS indoctrination that Rafflesians were geeky, disgusting and altogether queer creatures. Of course now I know that is not completely true. But the colours Green, Black and White just aren't as regal as Red, Blue and Gold.
Also, it riles me slightly that Justin Bieber shares the same birthday as ACS. Almost as much as him sharing the same first name as me, but not quite...
Sunday, February 20, 2011
126
Sang for the 126th Anniversary service today. My first time singing in a choir for about 2 years. Exactly 2 years actually, seeing as the last time I sang was for the 124th Anniversary.
I guess sometimes I miss my choir days back in ACSI. I will always regret that we never truly made great music together then, but still there were brief moments when I thought we almost did. I have always found something special about the sound of many different voices meshed together to form a unified chorus of song. When done right as I have heard some choirs do, the music is simply sublime. But I guess not everyone can do it. Still I am grateful for the chance to try once in awhile...
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth,
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
The Kingdom of this world is become
The Kingdom of our Lord
And of his Christ.
And He shall reign forever and ever,
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,
And He shall reign forever and ever,
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
-G. F. Handel, Hallelujah Chorus
It is said that so great was the majesty conveyed in this piece of Christ decending from heaven triumphant, that King George II was moved to stand during the performance. Since it was Royal protocol that when a monarch stands, everyone in his presence is required to follow suit, the entire audience and even the orchestra stood with the king through the duration of the performance. Thus it is tradition even today for everyone in the hall to stand when this piece is performed.
I guess sometimes I miss my choir days back in ACSI. I will always regret that we never truly made great music together then, but still there were brief moments when I thought we almost did. I have always found something special about the sound of many different voices meshed together to form a unified chorus of song. When done right as I have heard some choirs do, the music is simply sublime. But I guess not everyone can do it. Still I am grateful for the chance to try once in awhile...
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth,
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
The Kingdom of this world is become
The Kingdom of our Lord
And of his Christ.
And He shall reign forever and ever,
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,
And He shall reign forever and ever,
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
-G. F. Handel, Hallelujah Chorus
It is said that so great was the majesty conveyed in this piece of Christ decending from heaven triumphant, that King George II was moved to stand during the performance. Since it was Royal protocol that when a monarch stands, everyone in his presence is required to follow suit, the entire audience and even the orchestra stood with the king through the duration of the performance. Thus it is tradition even today for everyone in the hall to stand when this piece is performed.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"Why is this is in the Corpus Iuris Civilis but not anywhere I know of in common law? Aren't we supposed to be more advanced (therefore compassionate) than the bloody Romans?!"
The latin statement translates something like "Rather a crime go unpunished than an innocent be punished". I know very little about latin and law. Yet I do believe it was Sir William Blackstone the English jurist and law professor at Oxford that wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
The phrase itself is already rather famous, and all it took was a quick search in wikiquote to get the exact wording and source. Thus extrapolating from the guy's already flawed reasoning, one might almost conclude that Common Law is TEN times "more advanced (therefore compassionate) than the bloody Romans".
Hehe. This post (as with most of my other posts) doesnt actually have a point, but if you expected one you obviously didnt read the title of this blog.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
O R D
There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest?
- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of The Rings
- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of The Rings
Monday, February 7, 2011
Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light.
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
Overlooking the more serious implications of the above statement, I book in tonight and book out on friday a free man. Of course that raises the question of how much freedom does one actually possess in the first place.
Nah... I shan't spoil the mood...
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light.
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
Overlooking the more serious implications of the above statement, I book in tonight and book out on friday a free man. Of course that raises the question of how much freedom does one actually possess in the first place.
Nah... I shan't spoil the mood...
Sunday, February 6, 2011
NS Reads
Possibly the only aspect of the past two years which I do not begrudge the SAF, is the impetus to read more books. When you are in camp at night with nothing important to do, reading becomes a source of solace. Never in my life have I been such a prolific reader, and I suspect never again will I be.
I had actually set myself the task of reading all the works of C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton that the National Library could provide. With only 5 days left, I can say with a certain confidence that I have failed. Needless to say, confining myself to two authors over two years grew slightly monotonous and I was eventually distracted by other authors. Nonetheless the books read during these 2 years form a rather impressive list (if I may say so myself), and I include it below if only to convince myself that the past two years have not been completely useless.
With those that were especially enjoyable or influential in bold...
C. S. Lewis
Mere Christianity (Reread)
The Screwtape Letters
A Grief Observed
The Great Divorce
Abolition of Man
The Weight of Glory
Miracles
The Problem of Pain
G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Napoleon of Nottinghill
The Club of Queer Trades
Selected Essays
The Father Brown Series
Frank Herbert
Dune (Reread)
Dune Messiah
Children of Dune
Ravi Zacharias
Can Man Live Without God
Light in The Shadow of Jihad
Doctors: The Biography of Medicine by Sherwin Nuland
Flatland by Edwin Abbot
American God's by Neil Gaiman
Fight Club by Chuck Palanuik
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Silmarilion by J. R. R. Tokien (Reread)
Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder
A Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan
Justice by Michael Sandel
The Meaning of it All by Richard Feynman
Complications by Atul Gawande
Life After God by Douglas Copeland
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larson
Percy Jackson and The Olympians by Rick Riordan
Attempted Reads that never got completed because they were either boring or incomprehensible...
Confessions of St Augustine
Medicine, Patients and The Law
The Blind Assassin
The Black Swan
The Everlasting Man
St Francis of Assisi
I had actually set myself the task of reading all the works of C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton that the National Library could provide. With only 5 days left, I can say with a certain confidence that I have failed. Needless to say, confining myself to two authors over two years grew slightly monotonous and I was eventually distracted by other authors. Nonetheless the books read during these 2 years form a rather impressive list (if I may say so myself), and I include it below if only to convince myself that the past two years have not been completely useless.
With those that were especially enjoyable or influential in bold...
C. S. Lewis
Mere Christianity (Reread)
The Screwtape Letters
A Grief Observed
The Great Divorce
Abolition of Man
The Weight of Glory
Miracles
The Problem of Pain
G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Napoleon of Nottinghill
The Club of Queer Trades
Selected Essays
The Father Brown Series
Frank Herbert
Dune (Reread)
Dune Messiah
Children of Dune
Ravi Zacharias
Can Man Live Without God
Light in The Shadow of Jihad
Doctors: The Biography of Medicine by Sherwin Nuland
Flatland by Edwin Abbot
American God's by Neil Gaiman
Fight Club by Chuck Palanuik
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Silmarilion by J. R. R. Tokien (Reread)
Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder
A Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan
Justice by Michael Sandel
The Meaning of it All by Richard Feynman
Complications by Atul Gawande
Life After God by Douglas Copeland
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larson
Percy Jackson and The Olympians by Rick Riordan
Attempted Reads that never got completed because they were either boring or incomprehensible...
Confessions of St Augustine
Medicine, Patients and The Law
The Blind Assassin
The Black Swan
The Everlasting Man
St Francis of Assisi
Thursday, February 3, 2011
CNY
1) "non-optional social convention" -Dr Sheldon Cooper
2) Ord Mood trumps CNY spirit.
3) Having a camera is quite useful when you are in a gathering and dont really want to talk to anyone.
4) The telos of cny is quite possibly PINEAPPLE TARTS.
2) Ord Mood trumps CNY spirit.
3) Having a camera is quite useful when you are in a gathering and dont really want to talk to anyone.
4) The telos of cny is quite possibly PINEAPPLE TARTS.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Clean Hands
Found in many SAF toilets (usually right beside the mirror) is a poster that I presume is supposed to instruct army boys in the fine art of hand washing. The posters, of the kind made popular by the SARS outbreak, detail 7 scrubbing techniques that should be employed once hands have been lathered with soap. I highly doubt normal people practice the full routine on a regular basis. However since in the SAF your hands do have a certain propensity for dirtiness, I have actually found it rather useful.
When I was very very young, I did not grasp the need for scrubbing during washing. I always thought water was some mystical liquid whose very presence made things clean on its own. Soap was of course merely to make things smell nice. It was after a few more persistent stains that I discovered "ooooo... there's a reason for scrubbing", and even then the concept of germs and sterilization alluded me until awhile later. Of course now thankfully I know a lot better.
In my defence, "I need to wash hands to kill bad germs" isnt a very obvious conclusion for a toddler. Afterall for the longest time even doctors and surgeons had no concept of washing hands before handling patients.
In 19th century Vienna for example, it was common practise for doctors and medical students of the Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien (Vienna General Hospital) to spend their mornings dissecting cadavers. After which many of them would proceed to the Obstetrical Clinic to deliver children, often without bothering to rinse their hands. Apparently, the strong smell of cadavers on their hands was even a source of pride since it showed that one was a doctor. Needless to say, this led to an "inexplicably" high percentage of mothers dying from childbed fever.
It was the Hungarian physician Ignac Semmelweis who first displayed statistical data and some rough scientific evidence for the presence of so called invisible "cadaver particles" that were responsible for the deaths of many women. Yet few accepted his theories, and many rejected his solution of washing one's hands in chlorinated lime before handling patients. The poor guy was eventually driven insane by the indignation and died in a mental institution. It was only a few decades later with Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister (yay! he's from king's!) that Germ Theory was properly established and antiseptic techniques credited.
We have certainly come a long way in our understanding of things. But even without germs, clean nice smelling hands are still nice to have I suppose...
3Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
-Psalm 24:3-4
Random verse? Absolutely...
When I was very very young, I did not grasp the need for scrubbing during washing. I always thought water was some mystical liquid whose very presence made things clean on its own. Soap was of course merely to make things smell nice. It was after a few more persistent stains that I discovered "ooooo... there's a reason for scrubbing", and even then the concept of germs and sterilization alluded me until awhile later. Of course now thankfully I know a lot better.
In my defence, "I need to wash hands to kill bad germs" isnt a very obvious conclusion for a toddler. Afterall for the longest time even doctors and surgeons had no concept of washing hands before handling patients.
In 19th century Vienna for example, it was common practise for doctors and medical students of the Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien (Vienna General Hospital) to spend their mornings dissecting cadavers. After which many of them would proceed to the Obstetrical Clinic to deliver children, often without bothering to rinse their hands. Apparently, the strong smell of cadavers on their hands was even a source of pride since it showed that one was a doctor. Needless to say, this led to an "inexplicably" high percentage of mothers dying from childbed fever.
It was the Hungarian physician Ignac Semmelweis who first displayed statistical data and some rough scientific evidence for the presence of so called invisible "cadaver particles" that were responsible for the deaths of many women. Yet few accepted his theories, and many rejected his solution of washing one's hands in chlorinated lime before handling patients. The poor guy was eventually driven insane by the indignation and died in a mental institution. It was only a few decades later with Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister (yay! he's from king's!) that Germ Theory was properly established and antiseptic techniques credited.
We have certainly come a long way in our understanding of things. But even without germs, clean nice smelling hands are still nice to have I suppose...
3Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
-Psalm 24:3-4
Random verse? Absolutely...
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Transience
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
-James 4:14
-James 4:14
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Of Whale Fossils and Proton Pumps...
It was mildy amusing how a church membership class titled "God the Father" turned into something more along the lines of "Apologetics 101" or "Introduction to Evolution and Biochemistry". Nonetheless it was heartening to listen to a Godly man, with many years of experience as a doctor and scientist, share about the conviction of his faith.
As he spoke one could sense that this was someone who has truly lived through the Christian life. Someone who has tried his best to answer life's questions while holding fast to his faith. His lesson was full of wisdom and experience. His answers to questions carefully weighed and honest. Never once did he pretend that God's existence could be proven.
Afterall, all proofs lead to propositions that themselves have no proof. Ultimately all things are known because we want to believe in them. Or maybe because we need to...
As he spoke one could sense that this was someone who has truly lived through the Christian life. Someone who has tried his best to answer life's questions while holding fast to his faith. His lesson was full of wisdom and experience. His answers to questions carefully weighed and honest. Never once did he pretend that God's existence could be proven.
Afterall, all proofs lead to propositions that themselves have no proof. Ultimately all things are known because we want to believe in them. Or maybe because we need to...
Friday, January 28, 2011
Cockhorse
Than, when I see boys ride a-cockhorse,
I find it in my heart to embarrass them
By hinting that their stick`s a mock horse,
And they really carry what they say carries them.
- Robert Browning, Christmas Eve
Sometimes I find it hard to surrender and just rely on God. I guess submission to higher authority has never been my strong suit. However if I don't even have the faith to rely on God then what does my Christianity become? Is it a toy just like one of those cockhorses in the poem that I choose to amuse myself with?
It seems rather silly though. Why struggle to bear up your own Christianity when you can let it carry you?
Because its bloody difficult.
So much to work on...
I find it in my heart to embarrass them
By hinting that their stick`s a mock horse,
And they really carry what they say carries them.
- Robert Browning, Christmas Eve
Sometimes I find it hard to surrender and just rely on God. I guess submission to higher authority has never been my strong suit. However if I don't even have the faith to rely on God then what does my Christianity become? Is it a toy just like one of those cockhorses in the poem that I choose to amuse myself with?
It seems rather silly though. Why struggle to bear up your own Christianity when you can let it carry you?
Because its bloody difficult.
So much to work on...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Army English
It is a well known fact that in the army standards of English are low to say the least, perhaps due to low educational qualifications or just plain lack of effort. It is hard (though not impossible) to find a superior capable of delivering instructions in what would be deemed acceptable English. This used to irritate me slightly, but after 2 years the wide array of broken English in the form of bad grammar and spelling errors has begun to amuse me somewhat.
Recently a friend of mine received an award for "Soldier of the Month". The write up of his accomplishments on the official plaque he received was erm... interesting?
"CPL Y is an exemplary pioneer who displays a strong sense of commitment to the work he undertakes within the platoon during field pack inspections bearings and the maintenance of stores because of the fine work he produces."
"he has also displayed sense of belonging to his work."
For an organisation that claims to strive for excellence and efficiency, this sort of language is kind of a joke. But also when I pointed out to my friend that the first statement did not make sense since it says that all his fieldpack inspections and bearing are BECAUSE of his fine work (sort of a meaningless tautology), he made the following response on facebook...
"trust me, it does make sense, just not somehow it doesn't get the msg across. LOL."
Well obviously he made some typos as well, but my point is that he did not really notice the error and (I'm guessing) imposed his own meaning onto the sentence. Probably something along the lines of: "CPL Y is an exemplary pioneer who displays fine work, showing a strong sense of commitment during field pack inspections etc..."
One can hardly blame him though. Even while noticing the structural error of the sentence I (and obviously most people) was able to discern the actual meaning that was being conveyed. Despite all the bad English dished out by superiors, it is hard to deny that most of us are still able to grasp what they are trying to tell us.
Language is supposed to be a tool for conveying our thoughts and ideas. So when we use language to communicate, how much meaning is actually embedded in the words we use? Hermann Hesse in Siddhartha touched on this slightly I think:
"Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish."
It would seem that it is possible for meaning to be independent of the words we use. Maybe language is just a vehicle with meaning as a passenger. Yet if so, I really wonder what thoughts were truly in Hermann Hesse's mind before he chose to "distort" them in the form of the words above...
Recently a friend of mine received an award for "Soldier of the Month". The write up of his accomplishments on the official plaque he received was erm... interesting?
"CPL Y is an exemplary pioneer who displays a strong sense of commitment to the work he undertakes within the platoon during field pack inspections bearings and the maintenance of stores because of the fine work he produces."
"he has also displayed sense of belonging to his work."
For an organisation that claims to strive for excellence and efficiency, this sort of language is kind of a joke. But also when I pointed out to my friend that the first statement did not make sense since it says that all his fieldpack inspections and bearing are BECAUSE of his fine work (sort of a meaningless tautology), he made the following response on facebook...
"trust me, it does make sense, just not somehow it doesn't get the msg across. LOL."
Well obviously he made some typos as well, but my point is that he did not really notice the error and (I'm guessing) imposed his own meaning onto the sentence. Probably something along the lines of: "CPL Y is an exemplary pioneer who displays fine work, showing a strong sense of commitment during field pack inspections etc..."
One can hardly blame him though. Even while noticing the structural error of the sentence I (and obviously most people) was able to discern the actual meaning that was being conveyed. Despite all the bad English dished out by superiors, it is hard to deny that most of us are still able to grasp what they are trying to tell us.
Language is supposed to be a tool for conveying our thoughts and ideas. So when we use language to communicate, how much meaning is actually embedded in the words we use? Hermann Hesse in Siddhartha touched on this slightly I think:
"Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish."
It would seem that it is possible for meaning to be independent of the words we use. Maybe language is just a vehicle with meaning as a passenger. Yet if so, I really wonder what thoughts were truly in Hermann Hesse's mind before he chose to "distort" them in the form of the words above...
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Anticipation
"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best—" and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called. - A. A. Milne
Its surprising how much wisdom can be found in children's books. These books shaped our view of the world when we were young, but not much gets retained after that. Milne was right of course. The moment just before the long anticipated event always trumps the actual event. "Before" you are able to see the culmination of all your waiting and efforts, knowing that it will come to fruitation. "After" is well... only after.
I have come to the conclusion that the feeling during this period before freedom is better than the feeling I will have after. Now I can see the 2 long years of waiting finally closing. I can see the end only now. But after, it will be behind me. After ord there will be new questions to answer, new problems to face. I look forward to it. Yet at the same time I dread it.
I watched the disney cartoon Tangled recently. Perhaps the most poignant moment in the show was when Rapunzel and the thief guy whose name I cant remember were on the boat waiting for the sky to light up with lanterns:
"I've been looking out a window for eighteen years, dreaming about what it might feel like when those lights rise in the sky. What if it's not everything that I dreamed it would be?"
I have been waiting for ord since I enlisted in 13 April 2009. I know it won't be everything I hoped for once it has happened. I have always known. Yet I had to believe it would be. Believing kept me going through these 2 years.
24 days to ord...
Its surprising how much wisdom can be found in children's books. These books shaped our view of the world when we were young, but not much gets retained after that. Milne was right of course. The moment just before the long anticipated event always trumps the actual event. "Before" you are able to see the culmination of all your waiting and efforts, knowing that it will come to fruitation. "After" is well... only after.
I have come to the conclusion that the feeling during this period before freedom is better than the feeling I will have after. Now I can see the 2 long years of waiting finally closing. I can see the end only now. But after, it will be behind me. After ord there will be new questions to answer, new problems to face. I look forward to it. Yet at the same time I dread it.
I watched the disney cartoon Tangled recently. Perhaps the most poignant moment in the show was when Rapunzel and the thief guy whose name I cant remember were on the boat waiting for the sky to light up with lanterns:
"I've been looking out a window for eighteen years, dreaming about what it might feel like when those lights rise in the sky. What if it's not everything that I dreamed it would be?"
I have been waiting for ord since I enlisted in 13 April 2009. I know it won't be everything I hoped for once it has happened. I have always known. Yet I had to believe it would be. Believing kept me going through these 2 years.
24 days to ord...
Friday, January 14, 2011
Sin
Susanna Wesley, the mother of John Wesley, in a letter to our dear founder of Methodism once defined sin thus:
"Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself."
Sin seems so all-encompassing. It is no wonder that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). One cannot hope to overcome it alone.
I think I need to fully grasp the concept of Grace. Without it there is no hope.
"Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself."
Sin seems so all-encompassing. It is no wonder that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). One cannot hope to overcome it alone.
I think I need to fully grasp the concept of Grace. Without it there is no hope.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Consistency and Thought
A friend of mine whom I hold to be rather wise recently posted this on facebook: "
"If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see." - C. S. Lewis in Abolition of Man
"If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see." - C. S. Lewis in Abolition of Man
Saturday, January 8, 2011
New Year
This New Year seemed to me somewhat more "New" than the previous one. Last year I looked ahead and saw a full year spent within the clutches of hell. This year I suppose it helps that freedom is close at hand. Furthermore this year will really be a year of new beginnings, not only because of ord but also because of the start of university.
However, one cannot help but feel uncertain. I will be free from army soon, but sometimes I feel the damage that has been done is permanent. Two years that have been wasted will never be returned. I worked hard for my place in KCL and given the circumstances it was truly a blessing that I even managed to secure a place. Yet army has made me weary. Somehow the prospect of spending 5 whole years studying medicine and graduating only at 26-27 seems more depressing after wasting 2 years in army. 2 years wasting my life away when people in NUS Med were already pursuing their education. And well, the real hard work only begins after Med school. Sometimes I wonder whether it really is worth all that time, effort and LOTS OF MONEY just for some very very idealistic aspirations. Furthermore 5 years away from home is a long time. To start working and being self sufficient at 27 is really really old.
I know that in the end I will still probably go ahead with it. Its been my dream for a long time and still is even after considering the cons. I am however certain that I will need God's strength and guidance to get me through this. So I guess New Year's Resolutions:
1) Learn to depend more on God and have a closer walk with him.
2) Survive the rest of NS.
3) Spend the 6 months break before university meaningfully.
4) Drivers license -.-
5) Remember how to study so I dont fail my first Sem in King's.
6) Develop a zest for life?
The verse on the front page of the Wesley Methodist Watch Night Service programme was from Psalm 31:15: "My times are in your hand". Reminds me of the old Robert Browning poem where ACS got its motto from...
"Our times are in his hand
Who saith, ``A whole I planned, "
And just to complete the nostalgia, I might as well include the poem at the front of the school magazine. Rather apt I think, for ushering in the New Year.
At the Gate of the Year
I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year
'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'
And he replied,
'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way!'
So I went forth and finding the Hand of God
Trod gladly into the night
He led me towards the hills
And the breaking of day in the lone east.
So heart be still!
What need our human life to know
If God hath comprehension?
In all the dizzy strife of things
Both high and low,
God hideth his intention.
by Minnie Louise Haskins
"What need our human life to know if God hath comprehension?" This is something that I wish I understood better...
However, one cannot help but feel uncertain. I will be free from army soon, but sometimes I feel the damage that has been done is permanent. Two years that have been wasted will never be returned. I worked hard for my place in KCL and given the circumstances it was truly a blessing that I even managed to secure a place. Yet army has made me weary. Somehow the prospect of spending 5 whole years studying medicine and graduating only at 26-27 seems more depressing after wasting 2 years in army. 2 years wasting my life away when people in NUS Med were already pursuing their education. And well, the real hard work only begins after Med school. Sometimes I wonder whether it really is worth all that time, effort and LOTS OF MONEY just for some very very idealistic aspirations. Furthermore 5 years away from home is a long time. To start working and being self sufficient at 27 is really really old.
I know that in the end I will still probably go ahead with it. Its been my dream for a long time and still is even after considering the cons. I am however certain that I will need God's strength and guidance to get me through this. So I guess New Year's Resolutions:
1) Learn to depend more on God and have a closer walk with him.
2) Survive the rest of NS.
3) Spend the 6 months break before university meaningfully.
4) Drivers license -.-
5) Remember how to study so I dont fail my first Sem in King's.
6) Develop a zest for life?
The verse on the front page of the Wesley Methodist Watch Night Service programme was from Psalm 31:15: "My times are in your hand". Reminds me of the old Robert Browning poem where ACS got its motto from...
And just to complete the nostalgia, I might as well include the poem at the front of the school magazine. Rather apt I think, for ushering in the New Year.
At the Gate of the Year
I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year
'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'
And he replied,
'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way!'
So I went forth and finding the Hand of God
Trod gladly into the night
He led me towards the hills
And the breaking of day in the lone east.
So heart be still!
What need our human life to know
If God hath comprehension?
In all the dizzy strife of things
Both high and low,
God hideth his intention.
by Minnie Louise Haskins
"What need our human life to know if God hath comprehension?" This is something that I wish I understood better...
New Blog
oooooo new blog... no idea how to start...
Well this blog was set up for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in school I was forced to write a lot against my will. Now after spending 2 years in an environment devoid of any intellectual or civilised form of discourse (and perhaps also due to some perverse Pavlovian conditioning), I miss it.
Secondly, due to earlier said environment my language faculties have corroded somewhat and need to be repaired. Well practise makes perfect right?
Thirdly, since I will soon be gaining back my freedom I can foresee that I shall have a considerable amount of free time to burn anyway.
Lastly, I guess it might be good to have a place to store random musings and thoughts somewhere other than in my head.
One might say that these reasons are rather self indulgent. And that would be right. But thats what blogging is for right?
Well this blog was set up for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in school I was forced to write a lot against my will. Now after spending 2 years in an environment devoid of any intellectual or civilised form of discourse (and perhaps also due to some perverse Pavlovian conditioning), I miss it.
Secondly, due to earlier said environment my language faculties have corroded somewhat and need to be repaired. Well practise makes perfect right?
Thirdly, since I will soon be gaining back my freedom I can foresee that I shall have a considerable amount of free time to burn anyway.
Lastly, I guess it might be good to have a place to store random musings and thoughts somewhere other than in my head.
One might say that these reasons are rather self indulgent. And that would be right. But thats what blogging is for right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)