February 16, 2011
one of those conversations...
(becos emman wants to get married in a cold climate place)me: Why don't we just go to the Artic to get married? There're penguins too. You like penguins. Or North Pole. Polar bears. em: Singapore...me: Singapore? Forget it. There's no chance. em: ...me: No chance in Indonesia, Jakarta too. em: ...me: Yay! We don't need to get married! Emman's lack of response often denotes how cute he finds me. Or, just sometimes, exasperating.
Posted by 杏 cy （Jancy） at 01:15
Quits
So, this Vdae, we are quits. After 1 big card and 1 medium card from Emman and 1 medium card and 1 bun (with egg ok!) from me, we finally call it quits for Vdae. Next year, no more consuming Vdae. Small plastic cards can be given any day. The sooner, the sweeter. Love, me.
Posted by 杏 cy （Jancy） at 01:10
February 11, 2011
mind-boggling
As I walked home 15mins earlier, there were two things on my mind.
One. Over dinner earlier, YY said he's sure that if one rationalises (or make logic out of) something that is meant to be felt (or emotional), there will not be happiness; if one gets emotional about something that is plain logic or logical, there will be trouble. His supporting examples: if I attribute logic to the feeling of love, I will not be truly happy. If I get emotional and vent my frustrations on my boss, then I will surely get into trouble. (Is it even considered logic not to vent frustrations on boss? I thought that's more like... suppression.)
I tried to differ from his viewpoint. I begged to differ but eloquence escaping me, I didn't find enough convincing examples to refute him. Perhaps, that is why he's a good salesperson - he's used to an 'attack' approach when trying to convince you of the seemingly truth of what he's telling you. Catch you unaware and then, bombard you with examples that he's already playing dozens of times in his mind and leave you with little to refute him. A little too manipulative, even by I say so. Anyway, I merely ended the discussion by saying that I begged to differ but since we were on different premises, the discussion is going nowhere.
I believe in the good and wisdom of using logic and rationality to balance emotions, particularly negative ones. I also believe being emotional and sometimes, passionate about something that is logical gives one a profound sense of happiness. That explains mathematicians.
I stopped my mind-boggling on this count.
Two. Emman and I watched 'The Rite' just now. I must say that it is indeed an apt movie to catch just 2 weeks before I start showing up for my own 'Rite' - Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Pun intended. hahaha..
The movie wasn't about faith. Unexpectedly. It was about the lack of faith. At least, it was that case for me.
"Not believing in the devil does not protect you from him." - and not believing in God does not give you protection over anything, I suppose? So, does that sort of make God the same status as the devil? But, believing in God gives you a shot at being saved from the devil. I say, 'a shot' because in the movie, the possessed pregnant lady who believed in God still died of unnatural causes, it seemed.
Father Kovak believed in the devil first, then because he believed in the devil, he also believed in God. Is there a sort of 'correct' sequence which set of belief should come first? Is it then, possible to believe in God but not in the devil? Emman said in the bible, the devil was clearly mentioned. So, does that mean by believing in God, one has to believe in the devil too? Is believing in God a kind of probable salvation from the devil? Is it only limited to that?
Father Kovak tried to pull the wool over the devil's eye by philosophizing that if he didn't believe that the devil existed, then the devil wouldn't exist and therefore, there is no devil. So... there is no need to believe in a devil, or the concept of a devil. Something along that line (I'm seeing stars already here...). That's philosophy. Just goes round and round in circles... haha My point being, if you don't believe in something, does it necessarily mean it does not exist? I don't believe in Santa Claus... but... the concept of Santa Claus does exist. Concepts. Are they different from existence? Epistemology. There we go again...
While watching the movie, admittedly, it was tempting to believe in Christ. Now, let's get this clear - as I've said again and again, I believe in God. It's Christ that I have issues with. In fact, while I was walking home, I reaffirmed my belief that there is a God. There is a higher order, a sort of divinity, or even supernatural. Hence, my issue isn't really with faith. My reluctance lies in the institutionalization of faith. To be specific, my doubts are with religion, not faith. I doubt the accuracy of religious interpretations. I doubt that Jesus was chosen to be born in a manger (and not somewhere, anywhere else) to Joseph and Mary (and not... Peter and Jane, for example). I doubt that the three wise men stopped because they saw the light of the star, and not 'cos they just needed to air their feet. I doubt many of those stories being construed as word of the lord.
Does that count me as a 'doubter' or a skeptic? I'm not an atheist - that's for sure. Unless you haven't been listening or reading carefully.
Fast forward to Dec 2011, how might I change to be ready to announce that I accept God in the order of a structured belief system that includes so many of men's interpretation? If God is believed to be everywhere, why is there a need for church? A need to set aside a day for mass, for service, for his word? If God is omni-potent, why do we praise him so lavishly just so he can hear us? Isn't that a little egoistic?
God is within. Within each one of us. I think. So is the devil.
Was this what Father Kovak was contemplating before he externalised it in form of declaration?
===
Question the boundaries of your faith. I think this movie scored it.
Posted by 杏 cy （Jancy） at 23:49
Also in this eden
Even before
other edens
Kudos