b.a.r.t

Maybe Poetry

2011-07-08T22:23:00.010+08:00

This entry is actually from a comment I made on YA's blog. I tell ya, he actually qualifies as a Muse of mine. Sometimes I also wonder at the responses I have to his posts.

Here goes.

Life can become meaningless when we as people only want to look at the page numbers, the chapter titles of our lives.
But one does forget that a book, our books, are read word by word. And every single word, even an 'A' has meaning in itself as part of our lives. Even the space(courtesy of the spacebar) exists, and it has a purpose, derived or innate.
Each of us is a book authored by God. Skipping the individual words too much, and looking only at the Chapter names to catch a glimpse of what is happening at a given season would surely cause us to miss the individual moments.
Spring is not just about flowers.Summer is not just about vacation.Autumn is not only about falling leaves.And winter is not only about the cold.
People run about hurrying to identify and to classify everything obvious in relation to themselves that we are blind to see what else that could be seen. Sometimes beauty is precisely the thing we cannot name.

Beauty is the thing that reminds us that a thing need not have a derived existence. It just can be.

Who created God?

2010-08-04T17:45:00.002+08:00

This is another contemplation triggered by a fellow brother's question. During one CG, he asked a question, "How do you tackle the question, 'Who created God?'" Following the question, I could not sleep for almost the whole of that night as the question just kept going through me head. So I thought that I might as well unleash those thoughts regarding it since I am already prevented from sleeping by their presence.

So here it is. Again it is a copy-paste from an email. Warning: long post.

"Who created God?" is essentially a question similar to the philosophical question by Zhuang Zi, "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man, or am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly?" Or the more common variety, "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"

Now this question(s) inadvertently will bring about a massive headache. So chim right? How to answer this kind of question? Ahhhhh!
Wrong. Or more pointedly, I disagree.

It is a pseudo-intellectual question.This is not to shoot down people like Zhuang Zi, but the people who ignorantly use them for their arguments, thinking they have a super weapon. In this case, it is to throw a Christian off-track, attempting to put the Christian on the defensive.

The real answer to the question is this, "It does not matter." What use is knowing this? Does it help you live your life? Or does it merely swell your head up big enough to think, "I know more than you do; I am superior to you." In other words, it is fixating one's attention on pointless details. Or it can be translated as a refusal to engage a sincere Christian on equal terms; probably indicative of an assumed innate superiority.

So, the question is actually a symptom of an illness on the part of the person who asked it. It is a refusal to acknowledge that one might be wrong; of pride. So the question is brought out as a means of a deflection shield, making the Christian expend his energy thinking of how to answer the question when actually the perpetrator does not want an answer.

Then there are some who use this question as a representation of logic- their logic. "Everything must have a creator." So, "the Creator must need to have been created too." Sounds logical? No. It is basing truth on a self-assumption. Let's go back to the chicken or egg. One would say that it is the chicken which came first, another would say that it is the egg. Who knows? What is only certain is the knowledge that we cannot be certain. This type of spiritual/intellectual exponent would bring the Christian on a grand merry-go-round over something that cannot be known.
The more devious of this type can actually damage a believer's confidence in his faith. Why? The 'circle' of cause/effect has no beginning and no end. There is an unexplained yet undeniable logic that suggests a creator. Yet this is another danger zone. It points to God as creator. The devious opponent can then insinuate that we wouldn't know that God is the Creator. God can simply be the name we give to the unexplained catalyst, the motion that created the circle. In other words, the opponent can insinuate that we, Man, create God. There is no real way of arguing out of this. And then we come back full circle to a pointless question and the unprepared believer's faith is shaken.

So, what is the point? My point is, do not fight this 'intellectual' battle. It is an 'intellectual' trap. It is a battle on their terms. It is next to impossible to win a battle that is rigged for you to lose. I think at least Sun Zi agrees with me on this (or rather, I agree with him >.>).

Additionally, I also want to say this about truth. There are variations of the quotation I am going to quote, but the gist is the same, "Truth does not need to be defended." Why? The truth can never be defeated! So many believers do apologetics from the stand of defending the faith. To me, that is a flawed way of doing it. How does one defend God? Or- does God need our protection? God can take care of Himself; if He can't, we are very sorry and pitiful creatures indeed.

But if you do want to engage the 'fight', do not defend, strike! . Bring the battle to your territory; what you know. As Christians we fight from the perspective of victory. Jesus has mentioned, "It is done." What is done? Think and pray about it. I think we know the answer.
God cannot be understood by intellect alone. We need the involvement of our spirit as well. This is why Christianity is called the faith and not the logic. I am not throwing away intellect by the way, in fact I believe I am using intellect tempered by the Spirit right now. *shrugs*

Erode the armor of these 'intellectuals'. Their armor is pride. Their heart is unbelief.

Now, how to go on the offensive? I offer a generic strategy. I will show this by a dialogue. Blue is the believer, Red is the non-believer. Rationale will remain in black and bracketed. Yellow will be guidelines.

Who created God?

God does not need a creator. He is the Creator.

No, no. That is illogical. God must have a creator. Everything must have a beginning. (Un-substantiated assumption. flawed logic. Bringing the discussion into his territory. Bait him more.)

Why?

Everything has a cause and effect. (Using what is considered as fact. But facts do not mean true. Think DaVinci Code. This is where you go on offensive, Ignore engaging the fact and ask your question.)

Oh. Why is there life? Why is there death then? What is the cause of death? (low-level opponents would just tell you some science/technical terms)

What is the cause of life? (this rarely can be answered smartly- if the person can, best to parley and adjourn the discussion, haha. but this leads on to the next question.)

What is the meaning of life? (No one, can answer this question, I think. Apart from an understanding of our relationship to God. I can be mistaken of course.) (This is my experience with a response to this question; it is actually a 'below-the-belt' if you are not prepared. It is predominant especially in Chinese/Confucian cultures.)

To venerate the ancestors.

Oh. Why did the ancestors live then? Why did they die? So who did the first ancestors venerate? (I think you should be able to capture the gist by now. Essectially you do 'tai-chi'. You turn the question right back at them, making them uncomfortable. At the very least, it tells them they cannot conquer you in this area anymore. At the best, it prompts the real intellectuals to question their beliefs and really begin to seek after God.)

And that is the long post. *Whistles*

Are there no new revelations?

2010-08-04T17:31:00.003+08:00

This was a question that was brought up by a sister. It is due to a statement made by Ps. Edmund Chan, "There are no new revelations." She asked me about my opinion on it and the following is that opinion(copy-pasted from an email I wrote), though one might actually call it a study. Oh well.

There is a basic doctrine that have to be present before we start, that is the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and is God's revelation of Himself and His plan to us.

The verse that supports that supports the statement that, 'there are no new revelations' is actually the one which is most often quoted by Ps. Ben. It is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV).

How do the two verses support it?

Firstly v16 claims that all Scripture is God-breathed, which is another way to say that they are God-inspired, which is another way to say that all Scripture is revealed. Another way of putting it would be to say that 'All Scripture is revealed by God Himself'. The only way we can know the invisible God who is outside what our senses can detect is when He chooses to reveal Himself to us, and let us understand. In this way, all knowledge we have of God is by His initiative, His revelation. Also, revelation is from God, about God and for us to know God.

Then we go on to v17.

Attention has to be drawn to the words, 'thoroughly equipped' and 'every'. Another meaning for 'thorough' is complete; 'every' also shares the same meaning. So in effect, what this verse is claiming is that the has comprehensively covered everything that we need. Our purpose is revealed and any questions we might have on how to achieve this purpose is found in the Bible. Thus, there is no need for God to further reveal Himself as everything we need is already here with us.

Of course, there is also another passage that complements this view. This is in Revelations 22:18-19, "18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." The book mentioned in this passage, though perhaps primarily used to refer to the book of Revelations itself, can also be used to refer to the entire book of the Bible itself. Why can the latter be so? It is because Revelations is essentially a summary of God's plan - the past, present and future. Now, think: why would God not want more additions to His word? A simple reason could simply be that it is already complete.

Then we might ask, "If the Word of God is already complete, how come we can experience new understandings of God, how come we can grow closer to God?" This question is particularly problematic for those who have finished reading the Bible and perhaps have done so many times. So in effect the question is, "I have already read through all the revelations of God, how then do I explain the fact that i keep experiencing God anew in fresh ways throughout my Christian walk?"

The answer is that the person who asks such a question has misunderstood the meaning of revelation. Revelation gives knowledge. It is not synonymous with understanding. We have to uncover knowledge to gain understanding. It is a two-part process and in it also illustrates the beauty of free will. God has stretched out his hand in welcome and given us a knowledge of His person, already made complete through Jesus Christ and the compilation of the Bible. That is the first part of the process.

The next part of the process belongs to us. We have to engage that knowledge, to uncover it for ourselves. Of course we are not able to on our own, so God sents His Holy Spirit to help us. So, what seems to us as 'new revelations' are actually 'new discoveries'. When we say,"God has revealed to me a certain truth today.' etc, this is actually what we are referring- that we have finally taken a truth that is already in the Bible and understood it. The knowledge, the evidence has always been there in the Bible, we have to uncover and discern understanding through the spirit.

So, in essence, God has already stretched his hands, and 'showed hand' for the first part. For the second part, we have to reach out our hands and touch his.

That is also the difference between 'LOGOS' and 'RHEMA'. Sometimes, people talk about having the RHEMA word and all that, and seem to ignore the LOGOS. But the RHEMA derives from the LOGOS. It is not just the RHEMA that is alive, the LOGOS is also alive. The Bible is the Living Word. Hebrews 4:12 says, "12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." The real difference between LOGOS and RHEMA is that of absolute and derived truth. The LOGOS possesses all the power divested in it by the revelation of God, but the RHEMA is that truth relevant in our lives, our situations, our contexts. None of the two supercede each other. They are the same in spirit but different in form, just as water is to ice.

So the person who claims that he has the RHEMA but has not touched the LOGOS is like a branch with no roots.

So the person who only studies the LOGOS and ignores the truth of RHEMA is like a root which refuses to open its leaves to the sun.

And so, there are no new revelations. All knowledge is already given. Think about God coming down to earth in person as Jesus Christ. Consider Jesus' words in John 14:6 also, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus is also known as the Word. By coming down he revealed himself. God reveals Himself. He was there for all who were interested to hear him, to see him, to touch him, to be close to him. Yet alot of peole choose to remain only at a distance. Its not for a lack of evidence or initiative on God's part, it is the unbelief in our hearts that prevent us from meeting with him and understanding him. That is the problem of so many atheists and perhaps the Pharisees in Jesus' time. They want more revelation where there is none.

As for us followers of Christ, what is actually happening to us day by day is the slow removal of all the little unbeliefs in our hearts.

Another word for these unbeliefs, of course, is sin.

Thinking though such questions are so much fun, and I do feel God's pleasure. For those of you who know me(either in person or through here), do ask me such questions if you have them. I would be delighted to go through them. Heh.

End of a sojourn Pt 1

2010-06-25T09:00:00.031+08:00

This post is meant for those people who care for me, those who think they care for me, those who think they ought to care for me, and myself. Why so many categories, you ask? Well, go ponder.

Ha ha.

This post is actually related to the poem in the earlier post prior to this. The subject matter is the same. If you have been wondering what the poem is all about, this post will better illuminate for you, I hope. Even if it does not, it is ok, for this post is also for myself.

As of the moment when I am writing this, I am actually jobless. Jobless in the sense that I do not have a place where i go to spend my time and then get paid for that time. But I do not think I am unemployed, for I believe that now I am rightfully employed for what I am meant to do. What do I mean by this? Let me explain.

Just two months ago, I was in the final phase of a post-graduate course training me to become a teacher. However, before I completed the programme, I resigned. This came as a surprise to people around me, and it caused some unhappiness as well. Outwardly, I was doing well, and was not encountering any big problems in the course of the work.

But I was.

And here is the explanation why I did what I did. The reason is simply, I was stressed. I could not stand the pressure. Now, before you go smothering with maxims such as 'you need to persevere in the face of hardships' and 'you cannot escape stress', allow me to explain first.

The stress and pressure that I am talking about does not have its roots from the environment or the external. The pressure I am talking about is internal. In other words, I was in danger of exploding and not imploding. I am alright with the vigors of teaching (though irritated with some aspects of the job), but what I was not alright with was with a deep sense of disatisfaction within.

Some of you might be thinking, 'Spoilt brat'. Think what you will.

The story runs deeper. The reason why I joined teaching is actually due to a process of rationalization that I indulged in, a year back. Now, for those of you who do not know- since graduation from my undergraduate studies, I have always felt a calling and compulsion to become a writer. This calling, I cannot fully explain, but it has lived in me since the very idea came upon me.

I am an Asian from a typical Asian family. My family is not very well-off but I think we are quite comfortable. Now, with this context, a writer is not a profession. It has too many unknowns. It is not viewed as a reliable way to make a living and is too unconventional. I tried to sound my parents out about going the route of a writer; though they did not openly object, the words that were unspoken were, 'Pursue your dreams, but get a proper job first'. And that's that then.

But how do you teach a penguin to fly?

I dutifully went about looking for a job. I went for interviews, did some part-time stuff, did private tuition, even had a stint playing games for a living. Then the invitation to be a teacher came. I initially wanted to chuck it way, but I remembered I heard people tell me before that I would make a good teacher. Besides, teaching fits into the idea of a proper job which is stable as well. Of course, the bond of 3 years is sort of a warning signal, but i rationalized it off- if I can survive a similar duration of National Service, surely I can survive 3 years in teaching?

The astute among you might already have noticed a pitfall here. I started off by wanting only to survive. I will go into the whys later.

This changed after I entered NIE, however. I realised I could genuinely be good at teaching, and so sought to excel. I began to understand what others saw in me when they told me that they think i could teach well.

But being able to do something well is not a reason for one to do that thing. The former an economic concept that overlooks the human aspects of people.

I did not have any passion for teaching (in the context of the education system). I did not care hoots about the career prospects and perks. [I do not believe in the idea of having a career. I see it as an artificial social construct, a lie] I already knew that this was not what I want out of my life. This is not to say that I was irresponsible and did not think it through when I signed on the dotted line. From the outset, I had meant it to be a sojourn.

Why?

I have always seen myself first and foremost as a writer/writer-in-becoming. The decision to enter teaching is actually a compromise- to put my parents' worries at rest and also to have a pool of money so that I can embark on writing, which i believe my calling to be. After 3 years, I would come back to writing (not that I really had started). Little did I know that the decisions I were to make would make the very things I sought to solve, worse. Little did I know that the projected sojourn would be shorter than I thought.

I had overestimated rational thinking and underestimated my will. I had trusted overly in the mind and ignored the heart. I had overlooked Matthew 6:21, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

So now I seem to be back at square one, or in some perspectives, before that of square one. But this is only looking through the glasses of failure. I do not see this experience as a failure but a learning experience. Oh, I am not ignoring the consequences. But things done are done. Life has to go on, and I have to move on.

I do have to say this here. I honestly believe that I have gained much more out of this episode than lost.

What have I lost? I have lost a job, money, and maybe the respect of people who do not matter to me.

What have I gained? I am again acquainted with joy. I have rediscovered the reason for my calling and also confirmed it. The experience has also helped me have a closer relationship with my parents. And most precious of all, I have rediscovered the real and living God, and also have an enriched understanding of how wonderful, and loving, He, really is.

And this is the end of a sojourn. And I return to the journey that I was meant to be on.

Matthew 6:33, "But seek first His kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

To be continued...

Sorry...Myself

2010-06-22T09:22:00.003+08:00

Wow. I was not aware I was away for almost a year.

Sorry.

Of penitence, can I say that I absolutely
missed visiting here?
And suffered to veer?

Excuses-
you say?

Have your way.
In my defence,
I have no offence.

Hug me-
you demand.

Punishment or no,
I will do this errand.
In it, makes me whole.

Floor me,
Scold me,
I beseech you.

You did.
Did and did not.
I admit...
I left you to rot.
Valid-
But you hate me not
For I did.
Did and did not.
Of a deed
Vacate the cot.
But a deed
My soul did lot.
Where a teat
took me from naught.

But
hush, you tell me now.
Home,
again I did found.

Myself.

To be or not to be...

2009-03-04T22:20:00.001+08:00

This posting is actually long overdue... as per my standard operating procedures protocol. Haha. The wonders of procrastination eh? It gives you more things for you to do when you do not have the time for them and nothing to do when you have all the time to do them.

Anyway, this post is sort of a laying out of my thoughts onto a visible medium so that i can be clearer on what those thoughts are and the basis of forming, using, and standing by them.

The thoughts concerned came about when during a MSN conversation(if these things could be said conversations) with Michelle, she asked me if I would be attending a seminar on Christian Ethics. This is a month ago, in February. Basically, the seminar will address issues on euthanasia and what the Bible says about the practice, and how we Christians should respond to it. This is conjecture, as I did not attend the seminar.

When I saw her question on the screen, being the decisive(yea, right) person that I am, I declared that I have no reason to attend the seminar, because i already have my own stand on it. I did not mention what this stand is, of course; but anyway it put an end to that thread then.

However, after I had switched off the computer, that night, I had a nagging feeling in me that I had just dismissed the possibility to learn about something that is important. Oh, by the way, the stand which i thought i had was one of disagreement with the practice, as I thought it will simply go against the commandment of 'You shall not murder' of Deut 5:17. Why do i have a sickening feeling in my gut(or somewhere else; I can't pinpoint the location) that I am missing something then? Well, being the decisive person that I am, i did my brain cool-down exercises and went to bed.

Now, God is the best teacher there ever is, and He prompts you along to self-discovery rather than shovel truth into your mouth(though sometimes that is necessary). After my mind is initiated into a discussion of euthanasia, awareness of any thingto do with it soared.

It's amusing that the Eureka moment came from the drama serial, 'Love Blossoms' on Channel 8. It was the last episode. In this episode, there was a dilemma presented. One of the characters in the show had just gotten pregnant. This was usually a source of joy. The discovery coincided with a medical report for the would-be mother saying that she has a heart condition which would make it dangerous for her to give birth; she was advised to abort and have a heart operation first. A portion of the remaining minutes of the show was devoted to the decision-making of the couple as to the course of action to take.

The husband was decisive -'I will book an appointment with the gynaecologist tomorrow to have the abortion done.' For him, the decision was simple: a baby is yet unborn, yet the wife IS and shouldnt be endangered in trying to have a baby despite her medical condition.

The wife is not that quick to decide. Though she knows that her husband has decided on a course of action because he treasures her and does not want her to be in danger, she is of the mindset that a foetus once conceived is alive. There was a further complication in that the husband is infertile, therefore rendering future pregnancies unlikely.

The decision made finally was to keep the baby and go ahead with the risks. And of course, there was a happy ending. It's the last episode, duh.

So what am I doing here talking about abortion suddenly when what I started on was talking about euthanasia? Well, thinking about them, there's one major thing in common between them. They are both moral issues which fall on the greyer side of things. It's easy for an observer to arrive at an absolute stand on the subject(ala me), but it's much more complicated for the ones undergoing the decision-making themselves.

Let's go back to the scenario presented in the drama. Though fiction, it is not far-fetched from what could actually happen. Go for the abortion and the world risks not ever seeing one who would bring wonder to it in the future(politically correct version ); go ahead with the pregnancy and the world risks losing one in her prime. What was in the picture is that of possible personal sacrifice for a percieved greater good. A moral stalemate.

There could be many reasons calling for abortions. One could be that pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, as above. Another could be that the child might have genetic defects- nip a diseased branch in the bud so that there will be no complications later. There are also unwanted babies- born out of wedlock or the parents predicting that they will not be able to provide for the born child. And more reasons exist, which for the lack of creativity and experience I cannot list.

One central concern is the question of what constitutes life. Is the unborn baby alive? Or do we only call it alive when it has emerged out of the womb and is independently securing its breaths of air? This is a question that is not easily answered even though there have been countless arguments for and against it in the past. I, for now, will also not take a stand as yet.

There are broadly two types of euthanasia; voluntary and involuntary. The first has the intended recipient ask for it, the second is requested on behalf by close family members.Voluntary euthanasia may be decided close to intended action or distant; being spontaneous or taking the form of a Living Will dictating health care professionals the wishes of a person if that person enters into a state which he does not wish to be in. Involuntary euthanasia usually takes place when the person is in no state to make a decision(coma etc).

Voluntary euthanasia is usually decided in intense suffering- terminally ill patients in the late stages of disease, or incapacitated patients who have lost their bodily and motor functions are are just 'staying alive'. Thus they ask for a quick end to it- for the first case, 'since they are dying soon anyway.' and for the second, there is the philosophical debate between being alive and living. Still others seek to be removed from medical care because of the costs on their families. Of note is that alot of times, such patients do not have access to their own means to suicide, thus a turning towards euthanasia(attempted suicide).

So, in other words, how you would react to suicide would most probably affect how you react to voluntary euthanasia. Suicide is wrong. Though one may sympathise with the reasons for suicide, one ultimately knows that suicide is akin to murder. Some may argue about the right for self-autonomy; the right to do what one wants with his/her life. But that right may actually be born out of ideology(humanism) rather than truth.

Of course, telling these patients to 'shut up, bear with the pain' is plain cold. But the truth is, suffering is a good thing. Not in the sense that we should aim to suffer because it is good(an aim), but that suffering is a prime catalyst to bring out the best in a person. God has told us in 1 Cor 10:13 that he will not give us temptation beyond what we can bear. What temptation? Well, in this case, that will be the temptation of giving up, of seeking the easy way out.

In some ways, I think that one of God's programme for us on this world is to scour every little scrape of our dignity away. Sounds controversial? Well, I meant to be. The sad thing is, in this ambiguous world, pride has often been confused with dignity. Patients on life support are disgusted at themselves for having to rely on others for their needs. They feel like a baby perhaps, with prevailing social conventions present in their mind. The right of privacy may factor in. But, essentially isn't pride present here? There is a looking back towards the past when one is self-reliant and failing to recognise one's present conditions(the need to rely on people).

If the question of life is that which confounds the practice of abortion, then the question of what death is, is the counterpart in the practice of euthanasia. In this case, is brain death considered death? I am not a doctor, or a medical student. The only info i have at my disposal is Google, or Wikipedia. I just would like to ask a question: if the brain-dead person is left on his own, will he live? The answer is no. This is not to say that he will die from secondary effects such as starvation , but that a brain-dead person no longer has an independently beating heart and is not breathing. So, does 'pulling the plug' on a brain-dead patient constitutes euthanasia? I really do not think so.

What about coma? Unconsiousness and delirium are usually the reason why involuntary euthanasia has to be practised. I am perplexed it is still called euthanasia. If its involuntary, how can it be suicide? And if it's not suicide, it's murder then?

Scripture, like it or not, is very vague on suicide. What stand we may derive from scripture is a synthesis of different laws and principles in the Bible. In the case of abortion and euthanasia, I think every case should be treated individually. There can be a general stand guiding us(me), but that does not mean that the stand/principle is greater than people(abortion and euthanasia deals with people). This is why I do not have a stand on abortion though in principle I am against it. For euthanasia, well, I am more decidedly against it except brain-death, which I think is more than a moral issue.

Does this mean that the Bible do not have absolute authority because it fails to provide an absolute viewpoint then? I believe no. It is a question of law and love. If, like that night, I had just taken a observer and legalistic approach, it is so simple to have a stand. But a stand is often sweeping, and I believe God tells us to go into details. God's law can be interpretated differently, for those who persist in doing so. But love is absolutely the basis where decisions are made. I believe it is love which makes both life and death palatable, and if sincerely pursued, enjoyable. Moral judgement comes from the heart, but love derives from the soul.

Clouded Minds

2008-11-03T20:41:00.023+08:00

Ahem.

This is an attempt to exercise my memory as one day I logged in to my blog and saw this incomplete post I had started. It is a good thing I had already given a name to it such that I will be able to recollect what I meant to say.

I hope.

This is actually a successor in spirit to the previous post about Thanksgiving. I had mentioned that nowadays we do not know where our food come from anymore, since when we see our food they are usually in a package(working professionals) and the process where raw food is turned into cooked food is generally not that familiar to us.

Even if we are adepts at the art called cooking, the ingredients that we use are procured on the basis of trust. We would never know what else we are buying when we purchase that frozen chicken or cabbage from the supermarket. The amount of additives in there is an unknown, definitely.

But, this time I am not really talking about food. I am actually talking about ideas. Yup. The stuff that goes into that lonely organ right on top of our head. The stimulus that made me ponder about this is actually a game i played. In the game, there was a dialogue between the protagonist and the sister. I would attempt to reproduce the dialogue here, paraphrased.

"He was running for mayor. Didn't you read the news?"

"It's not news anymore. It's advertising."

That was some cynical remark there, isn't it? It might not be that far from the truth though. We have become a very data and information oriented people. By we, I mean by contemporary standards- it is a generalisation of what modern society prize, and subsequently is in bondage by.

We live in an increasingly packed world. There is overcrowding everywhere. A typical person would have a schedule of schedules to keep. He would have to contend with many faceless people on his way to school, to work everyday. If public transport is taken, he will have to squeeze his body with countless others, smell their breath, mix their perspiration. If there is private transport, his personal vehicle becomes an extension of his person, having to squeeze and queue among the traffic in order to get to where he needs to go.

We cannot live a single day without interaction with other people- either the necessary or the needless variety. Is it surprising that most of us are so brain-tired by the time we return home that we switch on the TV set or computer for more pointless information and manufactured entertainment? Our minds are continuously marching to the funeral march of some unseen Pied Piper. As for our hearts and soul, I have a suspicion that they are constantly starved. And our bodies are turning into lumps of flesh or heaps of bones.

Why? Because we are so busy! All because of the invention of the clock. Is it a wonder you can find the word 'lock' in 'clock'? How many of us find that our time is locked away?

The clock, as I see it, is a bastion of commercialism and capitalism. Commercialism and capitalism, is about money. And what has time got to do with money? Consider the loanshark. What is most important to him? It is actually time; for he can then justify the exorbitant rates of interest he will charge. He is earning money based on the function of time. Consider the typical wage earner and salaried worker- if there is nothing that they produce concretely, they are actually paid on the basis of the time they pay to the clock. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "Remember that time is money."

So everyone's lifespan is measured in terms of money.

Perhaps the exception to this is the rich business owner, the boss or those who came into this world already tasting silver in their mouth. They pay for time using money. But they will soon realise that they can only buy a certain type of time.

Matthew 6:24b says this, "You cannot serve both God and Money." Maybe it is because both in worship requires our time, our life.

I understand that I have digressed. Ha ha. But since the notion popped into the mind, might as well flesh it out then. Let's have a different colour to differentiate between the original post and the continuation, which is done 2 years later.

Lala~ this is a post that doesn't end... it just go on and on my friend~

Gratitude

2008-10-02T22:14:00.001+08:00

Dear Friend,

it has been a long time since I've visited you, isn't it?

I suppose i should give you some attention lest our hedges overgrow, and the orchard becomes a forest which i am no longer able to navigate, let alone find, after a while. I do treasure this little abode - so do forgive me =)

Now what shall i say this time? Well, recently there's the incident of the poisoned milk from China causing the death of several infants. So, I want to muse on that. Indulge me, ha ha.

I'm not going to slather blame on those responsible or to defend them whatsoever. In fact, I am quite neutral (or should i say indifferent?) on the matter. These things happen; just that this time it is bigger in scale; perhaps and partly due to the effects of globalisation. I was actually quite amused by the way China is 'demonised'. Afterall, i think that such deplorable business practices happen anywhere. I remember there were also food poisoning incidents in Japan as well. Perhaps, the higher one stands, the more obvious one's faults are, then.

As noted, one of the reasons why it is such a big deal is that it affects us locally as well. Milk products have been found with melamine in them, and several prodcts have been ordered off the shelf. I received an SMS about 'problematic' products and was advised to stay off them. Well, I was tempted to just ignore and just say "God will protect me." until i realised that it IS God protecting me. Speaking of that, I was on the bus to work one day when that obnoxious TVmobile showed some interviews on locals about what they would do in response to the milk scare. There was a lady who gave an interesting comment: "I would continue to consume them... why not? If I eat I will be poisoned, if I do not, I will be poisoned too. Sounds fatalistic, no?

But honestly, that comment actually is quite valid from a certain point of view. As food is now a commercial product, the common person today has no control over the quality of the food that goes in his body. Simply said, we no longer produce our own food. We are tertiary food consumers. We cannot even be sure of where the food comes from anymore, or how it is is made, or what it is actually. This is not just limited to food, alot of products we use nowadays have dubious origins and even more questionable utility. Perhaps this is a consequence of the created 'wants' as a result of consumerism.

Anyway, that's not my main point. But this is a muse, isn't it?

The thing that got me really thinking was just the simple act(ritual) of giving thanks for my food the other day.

Giving thanks.

Thanksgiving.

Yup.

When i was a younger Christian, i came into contact with a joke about the practicality about giving thanks. The argument was such that, upon giving thanks for our food, we should consume it without fear, for that food has now been blessed by God for our consumption. Therefore, even if it drops on the floor, even if there's a greenish tint of mold on it, a believer with piety should still joyfully take the bread, give thanks, then lob it into his mouth. It's a matter of faith and trust in God. So the hapless young believer cannot win if 'challenged' by an older believer. Refuse to eat and you would not have practiced faith; eat, and you risk food poisoning. The confusion of a newfound faith.

It is amazing that what is basically a small act of remembrance can lead to such a 'profound' dilemma. We are giving thanks for our food. So the logical progression would be > Trust in His Providence> Food on Table> Gratitude> Joyful Consumption. But the joke would have changed it to somewhat like> Food on Table(or off)> Time to Give Thanks> Trust in food being Blessed> Consumption. What's wrong here?

The emphasis.

The former was done with gratitude in mind. The latter would suggest a compromise(AKA i do my part you do your part)or maybe even a magical spell.

The first was a show of affection. The second was a demand.

Contentment vs Asking for Favors.

Dependant and Consumer.

Which goes back to the recent food scare. I suddenly am struck by how good it is that there is food on the table. I am struck by how I have taken such providence for granted. Many times, I have just gone through the motions of 'saying grace' as a ritual. Sometimes it almost feels like I am asking permission from God to begin to eat my food. Sometimes I just mumble.

In abundance, it is easy to forget God's role and our relationship with Him.

He takes care of me, and keeps me safe. Why do I only feel this token sense of gratitude? Hardly a heart that truly loves Him, is it not? I suppose it is because I still draw too much from my own strength, and not from that boundless love that is His.

Such patience. I am a beloved of God. What a guy.

Thank You.

The New Year!

2008-01-03T17:12:00.001+08:00

Yo. Its another year already. The old has gone and the new has come. May my memories be short when they are supposed to be and long when they need to. May there be old wineskins and new ones...

I finished my resolutions today(nope, not going to share them here). A wonderful thing happened while i was pen-ning them down. As i was taking a break from writing, i looked towards the window and i saw a magnificent eagle! This one was different from the Common Buzzard which i see regularly on my cycling trips. It was much larger, was chocolate in colour, and has a white crown. By the size of it, i would think that it is indeed an eagle, though i do not know the species, as of now.

Now, I know some of you would not think that seeing such a sight is a great deal, but to me, it means, and symbolises many things. For one thing, an eagle(a live one) soaring is really, really beautiful. It is an exemplification of strength, grace, confidence, and of majesty. Little wonder that the eagle is the king of the birds.

To me, the eagle also represents an ideal of freedom. But this is not a freedom that approaches wanton-ness, but one where the knowledge and understanding of one's boundaries liberates you- the knowledge of yourself and the knowledge of yourself in relation to God. The eagle knows what it can do and does it. The truth sets one free.

There are many different kinds of flight. The characteristic flight of an eagle is that of soaring. Consider for a moment, the act of soaring can be pretty scary. It involves letting go of the instinct to take control(flapping the wings) and simply allow oneself to flow with the currents(letting God take over). Control is lost(seemingly), but the excitement more than makes up for it, resulting in an extremely enriching experience.

A confidence in one's own ability is good, but a confidence in a stronger person who can, and is willing, to help, is better. In both arenas where confidence can be found, they should be cheered on. In some sort of profoundness, it is the simple answer to approaching life, and embracing it fully. The eagle is the metaphor to this understanding to me, and this is why i am always encouraged by the sight of an eagle in flight. [This is not to say that there are no lessons in God's other lovely creatures... I am just saying I have a preference.]

That eagle i saw flew as if approaching me(the window) then climbed to the right out of my sight. But for that brief moment that it approached me in its splendor, i felt a peace and a security that is unexplainable. I imagined that the eagle had its approving eye on me for that one moment, and i thought i saw it smile.

All i had to do, was to be still, and know that God is God.

All these happened while I am praying. It is a divine exchange indeed.

Jan 3, 2008

There is more to life than this dour

confining prison;

repeated sickening bore.

But no reason

dictates we hold fast to the floor.

It is independent;

without our help it will still moor.

Do you yearn

to be free from that chore?

Then let us learn

to let go of our prideful crawl.

Let us turn,

look up,

spread our wings,

let go,

leap!

And begin to soar.

With heaven,

you will realise that life does indeed have more.

Harken; fill yourself with awe.

May the Kingdom come,

and the lion roar!

What's in a name (Part 3)

2007-10-18T13:43:00.000+08:00

This post is just here to provide clarity for my earlier post, 'What's in a name(Part 2)'

Firstly, i will state that the basis of the previous post is based on homonyms associated with the word Bourne in Jason Bourne. I tried to use the different meanings of the words to come up with a story. That's why i said the trilogy inspired me with a story. Of course, that story is the story of salvation.(i think most will be able to see). I tried my best to be credible...but if they seem too far-fetched, do indulge me. :P

And here's the adopted meanings of the various homonyms. I garnered most of them from dictionary.com(unabridged).

1. Bond - in serfdom or slavery

2. Born - brought forth by birth

3. Borne - to accept, or have, as an obligation

- to lead, guide

- to suffer (the later two are more sublime)

4. Bourn - a boundary, limit (Archaic English)

5. Bourne - a brook or a rivulet (Also Archaic English)

There. Those are the meanings i took and meant in the context. There are other reasons why I used some of them, of course, but i shall not indulge myself too much too far. Haha.

Oh, i would also like to thank YA for giving me feedback that the story was too long, and that certain parts of it were hard to understand (too cryptic), and that it was rather preachy. Also, the grammar.

I agree.

I became too conscious of the process of writing that i had written it while focusing on the product rather than just letting the words flow. As a result, it became too wordy, and probably off-character. Point to learn. I have to learn to be less inhibitive and to enjoy the process itself. That will be most natural. Well, anyway, that's it for this time.

What's in a name (Part 2)

2007-09-25T21:48:00.000+08:00

The Bourne Ultimatum.

I watched the movie last month(i think). It was entertaining; rich with action, suspense and endowed with a healthy(uh maybe unhealthy) dose of adrenaline. The scenes got by so fast and furious that i almost felt myself finally letting go of my breath after holding it in for more than 2 hours(ewww... haha). Even the soundtrack is good, a good companion and partner to the visual effects of the film.

Of the three Bourne movies(not sure if there will be more), I have watched 2. These are The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. I have enjoyed both tremendously, for their entertainment value, and also for the intriguing storyline. As such, when i arrived home, i sought out more information about the series.

The first installment is titled The Bourne Identity(whoa... enlightening, isn't it XD).

Jason Bourne, as a character, is in fact created by an American author named Robert Ludlum(1927-2001). He has a repertoire of thriller novels under his name, and arguably, Jason Bourne is one of his more famous characters. He wrote three Bourne books, namely, The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, and the Bourne Ultimatum. There were in fact two other books; The Bourne Legacy and The Bourne Betrayal, but these were written by another author, Eriv Van Lustbader, who continued with the series after securing the rights from the former's estate.

There is a big difference between the story found in the novels and the film adaptations, however. For one thing, the time-line is different, which therefore means a whole plethora of differences such as technological level, the players involved, and even differences in political climate. So, for the purposes of this post, I am only going to talk about the films.

Actually,
not really. Haha ^^

I am instead going to talk about something else, of which the Bourne Series have been an inspiration. It is about someone I know, and also about you and me(okay... if you are shy, it's just about me, alright?). Basically, it is a short story.

There was once a man who was born into slavery. This man had no name- how he was called is simply that which his ancestors were. His father was a slave, as was his father's father and those in his family before them. His forefather did something wrong, and as a result owed an incredible debt, resulting in all his offspring to be born in bondage.

As such, since young, he has been trained in the qualities of what befits a slave- to obey without question what his master wills. He had no rights, or rather, he did not even have an idea what rights were; his joy and anguish were decided at the whims of his master, and even so, what he felt, he learnt that he should not express- for usually when he does, those expressions are cut short at the end of a whip. He had no one to cry to, to confide in, save his fellow slaves, and over time, he got used to life as it is. Life to him is to live, eat, sleep and die a slave. What matters to him is merely not to displease his master so that he would not go hungry, or be deprived of rest. This was his Bond Identity.

In a neighbouring land, there also lived a prince. This prince had everything available to him; anything he needed or wanted, could be easily obtained, for his kingdom is rich and abundant in resources. In this land, the people lived contentedly, for it is a land without want, for everything that was needed, was given. His father, the King, is wise and just, benevolent and kind. The people of the kingdom loved him, for there is peace and righteousness throughout the land, and also the prince, for he followed in his father's footsteps, and was equally wise, equally just, equally benevolent, and equally kind. He could speak for the King, for he exhibits, and possess the same virtues his father has. Thus, the prince have a Born Supremacy.

One day, the King surveyed his kingdom, and having talked over it with his son, decided that
he wanted to invite people of other lands to come and visit the kingdom, and if they liked it, they are welcome to stay; to share in it's prosperity, as there are plenty for anyone who decides to come and stay. As a gesture of sincerity, the prince was sent, gladly and purposefully, as an ambassador to invite those who would come. His mission- to let anyone who wished to, come.

So, after travelling to various lands, as a last stop, the prince arrived in the land where the slave lived.

One day, as the slave was running an errand for his master, he met with the prince. To him, the latter is so... different. It is not so much a matter of dress, the slave has seen all manners of costumes of foreign lands on the few occasions that he get to step outside getting chores done. It was not a matter of language either; his master entertains guests from different places, as such, he is familiar with the different languages that those visitors use. Rather, it was the demeanour. The stranger has an air of authority around him. This was different from the cold, dominating command which his master and his associates had over him; instead it was a warm, comforting presence. Where his masters were pushy, this person seemed to attract.

Used to being ignored by others unless they have a need for him, the slave was awestruck when the stranger approached him with a smile,

'Hello, my friend, my father bade me to invite you to our home. He has prepared a grand reception and is waiting for us at home. Would you come? Please do come, i hope you will come.'

The slave simply nodded. Then, suddenly remembering the time, he jumped with a start and hurried back to his master's place.

A few days passed since that meeting. The slave went back to his duties as normal; he had returned late that day and had received a beating. He began to dismiss it all as wishful thinking when the prince arrived at his master's doorstep. The stranger wanted to buy his freedom! Later in the day, the stranger came to him and said,

'You are now free to go, this is my signet ring. Go to the town's gate. There will be someone waiting for you. Present him with this ring, and he will bring you to where i live. Peace be with you.' Having said that, he smiled and hugged him, and went back into the master's house. The slave(now a free man, so let's call him that) was dumbfounded, but he obeyed nonetheless. He was a bit apprehensive about leaving this familiar territory, but, since he has a choice now, he chose to believe in the prince.

It happened exactly as the prince had said. The free man was brought to the kingdom by the man he met at the gate, and he was speechless at the splendor of the place. Everyone treated each other with kindness, and everyone took care of one another. There was plenty of food around; people worked not because they have to, but because they want to- to keep the kingdom prosperous and because they love the King. The free man's arrival was met with celebration; there was dance, song and feasts, and the King himself received him personally! Initially, he held his head low; after all, he did not deserve all these, but later on, he discovered that there were many like him in the kingdom- they were all invited and chose to stay. Gradually. he was able to settle down, and learn to be free. He found friends, and family, and for the first time in his life, he understood and felt alive.

So... he lived happily ever after! Yay!

Uh... wait... Where was the prince?

The prince did not leave the place where he had found the slave. He went to the master in order to secure the slave's liberty so that he could bring him to his father's kingdom. However, the master, being a greedy man, asked for an exorbitant price, one for which the prince did not have at that time. So, the master proposed a deal- that the prince stay and take the slave's place such that the master sustain no loss; and the slave will be free to go. Later on, someone else can come back with the payment, everything would be fine and the prince can go home. The prince, bearing his mission's priority to enable people who wished to enter his kingdom do so, agreed. And this was the Borne Ultimatum. The prince exchanged his Born Supremacy for the slave's Bond Identity so that the slave can leave*. The signet ring was traded for chains.

The prince dutifully performed the duties that the master told him to do as he kept his side of the bargain. Meanwhile, he waited for his father to send payment so that he can be back at his father's side. The master, though, was exploitative, he treated the former as a slave, and abused him.

As soon as the King received the news of what his son had done, he sent out his trusted servant with the payment in order to bring his son back to him. He was both proud of, and worried for his son.

However, when the representative of the King arrived with the payment, he discovered that the prince was no longer there. To his horror, the slave-owner(master) had reneged on his side of the deal. There was an enemy nation of the Kingdom; since ancient times, the ruler of this nation had plotted to bring about the downfall of the King and his Kingdom, so that the ruler can be the most powerful and establish himself as supreme over the world. An agent of this ruler had found out that the prince was in the slave-owner's house. Seizing the chance to hold the good King ransom by having his son hostage, the ruler offered the master a price beyond what was originally agreed with the prince. Faced with riches he had never dreamt of before, the master quickly agreed. They together plotted to bring the prince to ruler's nation, to be the latter's prisoner. So, the master committed the Bourne Betrayal.

On a night when the prince was resting from his toil, remembering of his home, several of the master's hired thugs took him unaware, beat him unconscious, and bundled him up in a sack, intending to transport him to the evil nation. During the journey, however, as they were crossing a river, one of them slipped, and the sack that the prince was in fell into the river. The torrent was fast, and in a moment, the sack disappeared.

The thugs reported the matter to the the perpetrators. The slaver cursed his luck, for he had lost the fortune which the prince represented, while the ruler smirked, for he has been rid of his great adversary.

The King's representative hurried back with the dire news. On hearing it, the whole Kingdom gasped. Everyone stopped what they were doing, and mourned. The free man, was mortified. Only now did he know the policy of exchange; did he realised the price the prince had paid for someone like him who is worthless. He felt that he had caused the prince's death, and in addition to sadness, he felt an overwhelming sense of guilt, and suddenly decided he did not belong in the Kingdom after all, he being a wretch and all. He planned to secretly leave the place, and maybe return to his former mater's side. As he was about to leave, a figure stopped him. It was the King! To the free man he said this,
'I know where you intend to go, but, do not go. If you do, my son's sacrifice will have been in vain. He did what i sent him to do, and you are here. Please, do not let go of that fact. Stay.'

With that, the man was overwhelmed with emotions which he cannot express, and knelt down and weeped. The King laid a hand on his shoulder, comforting even when he should be the one needing comfort. Strangely, the King had a serene smile on his face.

Now, the river that the prince was lost in, actually flows across the Kingdom as well. The prince regained consciousness, and was washed along to a stream found in the Kingdom.

The free man found him. He could not believe his eyes. He ran to him, his eyes full of tears. The prince embraced him, and comforted him. The latter was speechless. All he could do was to hold on to the prince; he was so glad that he had come back.

The whole Kingdom rejoiced. The prince went back to sit at the King's right side, where he truly belongs. He went to greet and welcome those who had newly arrived in the Kingdom. The people praised him, and was glad and amazed by him. They rejoiced that they could come into such a place through such a glorious prince, who came from his father. The King was proud of his son, and received him back with love. And the prince co-ruled with his father, the King.

The end~

Uh wait... wait... (again?)

There's still the matter of the free man(now he really is free). The Bourn Legacy. Out of gratitude for how he was released from his life of bondage and witnessing that his redeemer lives, the free man asked to continue the legacy of what the prince had done. The King and the Prince personally endorsed him, and sent him out with blessings. They sent a counsellor to be with him, such that he may succeed.

Oh. And they gave him a name where he had none.

They named him Christian.

And so, this concludes my story. Well, it is not really my story. As I've said, it is about someone I(we) know and about you and me. I am simply re-telling it, using some puns derived from the Bourne Series haha. Hope you who read it enjoy it as much as I penned(uh... typed?) it. =)

It is Jesus who sets us free. Amen.

What's in a name...

2007-09-03T00:39:00.001+08:00

Well, here I am.

Finally started a blog, and this is its first post. Been wondering how to kickstart something I'm not familiar with, and just decided that i might as well explain the naming of this blog. =) Some of you might be wondering (or maybe not) why the address is bigandreallytoot. Well, for one thing, which is really obvious, it is an acronym of the name Bart.

Now, Bart is my Christian name, or more precisely, my baptism name. Actually, the full version is Bartholomew; but unless it is necessary, it's just Bart(saves alot of people from mouth acrobatics and also some others from the shower of saliva courtesy of those who try).

Anyway, how bigandreallytoot came about was when i first told Jiaxiang of it. Then, he was a new brother, and as he was going for water baptism soon, was deciding on whether he should get a baptism name. So, one fine day, he asked me what my baptism name was on MSN, to which i replied, 'Bart'. Of which he cheekily replied, ' Big and Really Toot*? Why did you choose a name such as that?'

-___-

Actually his adaptation of the name suited me quite well, incidentally. I was big(still am) and i am really toot(well i believe everyone is toot in his/her own way); and old friends tend to be more familiar of your toot-ness than anyone else... so no complaints... quite amused in fact(have to be in order for me to choose to use it as my address eh).

Well, to answer his more serious question- thinking back, when i first chose the name, i was actually clueless. Bartholomew sounded rare; and i dig anything that is unconventional or out of the norm(usually). That was my first rationale(should i term it rationale or whim?) for choosing it. However, baptism being a serious matter as it is(ahem), i was compelled then, to find a more meaningful reason for using it. So, i did some research...and viola!

Bartholomew is an apostle. Yay!(shallow, ain't I >.>)

Then i checked the Hebrew meaning of that name- It derived from Bar-Tolmai; which means The son of him who maketh the waters to mount, or a son that suspends the waters. Wow. Sounds like Moses. No wait... actually more like Joshua. Well, no significance to me at that point whatsoever...

Another entry explaining the name- Bar-Tolmai also means son of Talmai the farmer; meaning ‘having many furrows’, i.e. rich in land. Oh, so he's the son of him who is a farmer -that explains why he suspends the waters. It is a poetic way of describing the process of irrigation and such, i think. It still begs the question though- what has it got to do with me? As we Singaporeans say it... no link leh.

Later on, i discovered that Nathaniel and Bartholomew are the same person, and Nathaniel means given by God or God's gift. Hey that sounded nice. That is tagged to Nathaniel, however(so no cheating). Hmm.

So i turned to the Bible, and found the the only passage where Nathaniel speaks to Jesus. To keep it short, this verse caught my eye- John 1:47 When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." My namesake is affirmed for his honesty, integrity and sincerity(furthermore, the words are from Jesus!). That is something which i valued, and wished to attain. And so it became the reason for my choice; as a reminder to myself who the biblical character holding this name was, and what myself as a person, and Christian, can and should aspire to as i continue on my journey home. A role model. Of course, Jesus is the best role model; what i am saying is, amongst the
multitude of virtues, i will be more focused on befriending the values of honesty, integrity and sincerity(still alot of hiccups with them every so often :p)

And so, I was born again as Bartholomew, Bart for short.

I remembered i arose from that watery grave cold, and desperately in need of a towel.

And so here finishes my first post. Had originally only wanted to explain the naming of the blog(well freebies do not hurt, do they?) And seriously, this is proving more fun than i thought. =)