[[How has been]]

Monday, September 29, 2014

[[]]

The attack on identity is most potent. For if a person does not know where he comes from, he knows not where to go. Perhaps my university education is having use afterall.

After taking Malay studies, assuming that what my lecturer said is true and not farcical, I empathise with the Malays. Having their identity being in constant flux is really hard.

Ugh, I should write properly instead of all these disjointed stuffs.

Anyway, here is a piece from a study in my church. We ought not seek a minimum Christian threshold to avoid hell and spend the rest on whatever we want (chances are if you are trying to employ that you are treading risky ground on the avoidance of hell, my own opinion.). Instead, we ought to seek at least a minimum level of physical survival and spend the rest on being a Christian.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:42 PM|

Thursday, September 25, 2014

[[]]

Hmm. My grandfather apparently has cancer spread to his bones and stuff (after my previous post about immortalising them on film). So he is probably going to die soon. I am going to die too, just slightly later.

Copied from http://markmanson.net/life-purpose/

So when people say, “What should I do with my life?” or “What is my life purpose?” what they’re actually asking is: “What can I do with my time that is important?”

Time, time. Give me more time that I may squander it away without feeling guilt. My precious seconds trickling away into the abyss of eternity.

Why is it that people rather waste time than do what they can do? For that matter, why do I do that? Anyone that has an answer please pm me.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:36 PM|

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

[[]]

Oh my soul.

My mind likes the idea of my soul. Like my soul being the one that does and acts irrationally, not my mind.

So my mind goes oh my soul as if it is talking to a third party. But what is my mind without my soul?

Why does my mind have the audacity to think it has grasped the slightest of the great truths when my soul does not exhibit it. Or am I being too harsh on my mind now?

Lead me not into temptation but deliver me from evil indeed.

In other news, perhaps I ought to interview my grandparents and immortalise them on film. Or perhaps not for I ought to trust my memory and when my memory fades, it fades.

[[I wrote this at]]*|7:49 PM|

Friday, September 19, 2014

[[]]

I wanted to write Bob today but I didn't for it is 2330 now and I have IHG tomorrow.
I wanted to clear my essay and write Bob but I didn't for I only cleared my essay.
I wanted my essay to be outstanding but it wasn't for I procrastinated it until I had only time to finish it mediocre-ly.

Perhaps I didn't want all these after all.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:32 PM|

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

[[A Christian? take on the problem of evil. Ok maybe just my take on the problem of evil.]]

The problem of evil goes as follows.

There exists evil in the world.
If God exists, then God would have not allowed evil to come into the world
Hence, because evil exists, God does not exist.

I am mainly going to attack premise 2. First, some parameters. ‘If God exists’ assumes God to exist to create the contradiction. Hence, ‘If God exists’ claims a baseline that God exists. Any hypothetical situation then, has to have God in it and be absurd. One cannot claim, like Smart claims, absurdity for certain ideas attached to God such as angels and original sin using a framework that assumes an absence of God. Note Smart’s language on that about a medieval mind and whatnot. That would be saying ‘there is no God because if God exists, it is obvious there is no God’ which just doesn’t make sense.

So one assumes the existence of God. Then one has to try to comprehend God. There exists a problem here of human finiteness when trying to comprehend the infiniteness of God. For we have no clue of what is omni-scient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent except what is NOT omni-scient, omni-potent and omni-benevolent. Some people, like Smart, easily claim that God ought to have done this, God ought to have done that elevating himself, a finite thinking being into the place of an infinite thinking being.

It is queer trying to second guess something that is, by definition, beyond comprehension. I guess the human finite mind cannot even comprehend how finite the human mind is. So, I am essentially saying that given that we cannot comprehend accurately, what God is and what God does, then we are rather unable to form this contradiction. So I am thus saying that there is no way, conclusively, to deny the existence of God nor is there way to prove the existence of God for we know not exactly what is this that we are trying to proof or deny. (Yes we know omni all that but we cannot comprehend omni all that.) The God we think of is usually not God, just an immensely powerful being (that does not exist).

But that is not to say that we cannot expect God to behave in a certain way. God can be expected to act as how he revealed to us. So I shall try to show that the way he revealed to us is not contradictory to what is already existing.

I propose that if God exists, how God acts is always 'right' for he is 3omni (ok shorthand, I am too lazy to keep tying it). Yes follow?

And how God acts is always perfectly good, yet not in the way we think of good, but in a higher way, God's way. What this problem of evil does is try to assume that God's definition of evil is the same as our definition of evil and draws a tenuous link that establishes that God's action against evil ought to be our action against evil.

So, what does God say about the problem of evil?

1.The problem of evil in this realm is due to man's sin. In, perhaps, higher realms it is due to Satan's turning away from God.
2. God is displeased with evil. (yada yada Christian narrative of salvation and all).
3. God will destroy evil during judgement day and create a new evil-less world.

So is this compatible to our empirical evidence of evil being present at this point in time and space? I would say yes, because judgement day has not arrived yet.

Of course this begs the question as to why God created a world with that is perhaps, seen by the atheist as a 'false experiment'? God being perfect and all could have just created that new evil-less world perhaps without this world with evil within?

I think it is safe to say, without hypothesising too much, that God is infinite existing outside of space and time (though I do not comprehend what a being outside of space and time is even like for everything I know is within space and time). To God, purging evil from the world now would be the same as purging the world of evil later due to infinity. Only a being within time would instant results have any bearing. Say if we all are immortal, getting a degree now would be the same as getting a degree 100 years later for eternity is eternity.

Ok. Then you can hypothesise and come up with other reasons as to why God would make this 'misstep' and create this world that we live in. I mean, having argued that it is all the same due to existing outside of space and time, then why this instead of that?

Well, you have to ask God that, I guess. But the conclusion is that there is no contradiction now, just maybe whim? or something?

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:52 PM|

Friday, September 12, 2014

[[]]

The promise of future reward is all so uncertain. The present is so much more gratifying.

The present is instantaneous. And not only instantaneous, it is roughly guaranteed. Delayed gratification is largely a chance game. If the odds are good, or easy to calculate, one usually is able to make the right decision. For instance, given that one does homework, it is fairly certain that the next lesson will be far more enjoyable for the teacher would not scold him/her.

However, on the converse, if the odds are bad and uncertain, people tend to make more bad decisions. For instance, if one is unable to gauge odds of asking a girl out, one naturally is unable to make a decision (not even a good decision.).

Just sayin.

[[I wrote this at]]*|2:40 AM|

Monday, September 8, 2014

[[]]

I feel somewhat sad for people that need alcohol to open up. Of course, seen through the lens of healthy cynicism if there is even such a thing.

I am not against drinking, this is more targeted at a common reason for drinking. If you want to drink for health or because you enjoy the taste that is perfectly fine. Or if you are taking a leaf out of the Japanese culture and using it as an excuse to say, criticise your boss (and apologise afterwards if he takes offence by saying you had too much to drink).

I think these people want to do stupid things but are perhaps too afraid to do so.

Why do people want to 'lose their inhibitions'?

If one wants to do something, then one should just do it. If someone wants to do something but is afraid to do so, then that person ought to not do it. I am quite certain that you have valid reasons for being afraid and as such, you should not do it. If you have invalid reasons then do the logical thing and just do it (to put it nicely, be more courageous).

Purpose of this post is to make me feel like I am not wasting my time for I have procrastinated an essay for 4 days now.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:51 PM|

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

[[On texting back and purity and stuff]]

http://theresponsechurch.com/i-kept-my-virginity-but-not-my-purity

"I learned a lot about the difference between purity and virginity during this season of my life. Purity is a way life, and my virginity is something I give. What mattered, was what I chose to do with what I now knew about the value of my purity." Quoted from above link.

So, I stumbled across this article awhile ago. A long while ago and have kept this in this that I should write about for a decent amount of time. In case you readers didn't know, there exist many topics that I want to talk about but I haven't devoted the time and energy to flesh them out yet.

I think there the changed cultural values of the west have affected the east. I am speaking about the atheistic, humanist thinking that permeates western media and much of western thought nowadays.

I don't get the obsession that people have with losing their virginity. I mean, it is much easier to lose virginity than gain virginity right. They have a outta whack value system. Anyway, suppose that you are sensible and do not subscribe to that way of thinking.

“How far is too far?” rather than understanding what God meant by purity. We Christians love the already defeated game of, “How much can I get away with and still be a Christian?”

And lets further assume that you are a Christian.

Ok, let me cut it short cos I need to go and study for im a studious studier.

1. The atheistic viewpoint has no reason for one to value purity or virginity. Of course an atheist can hold on to such values but that would be rather incongruent with that person's worldview at large. It is the logical outcome of an atheistic worldview. There is no answer to the why purity or why virginity especially if one throws in hedonism that people are biologically inclined towards.

2, 'Traditional values' make sense only so-called slightly. They cannot withstand a logical attack, it is a tenuous stance to hold. (ok I am kinda arguing that the atheistic worldview is inherently immoral). For what reason is there to subscribe to such cultural values. The link is easily attacked. Especially in today's globalising and individualising society.

3. Christians are called to do more than just maintain virginity. Too often people are obsessed with the obvious marker and totally bypass a person's heart. The calling is much higher than just crossing off a to-do list. It is to live a life wholly after God which exceeds the most exhaustive to-do list for it is not doing alone but being (mind, body and soul).

4. Having said that I would say that perhaps, a rape victim can be more pure than a virgin who has unclean desires.

And where does that put me, put you? That is the question.

If one holds creation to be right and evolution to be false, why are the sciences thriving? The ground for science is in a theistic (I would say christian but I think Islam works too) worldview. If they deviate too far surely they would fall?
If materialistic sciences is false, shouldn't it be self evident? Yet materialistic scientist are making progress when their base assumptions are false. How is that the case? Of course most things are not related to evolution but still...

I suppose that in the future the truth will be uncovered. Truth always prevails. We need more scientist that subscribe to the creation worldview to make great breakthroughs due to said worldview. Perhaps that will be effective. Then again, perhaps it is already happening but being repressed by the 'current order'

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:52 PM|