Psalms 22

I was reading psalms 22 and I was amused at the number of references that the Psalmist David made to the work of Jesus on the cross. Psalms 22 in case you didnt know comes right before the often quoted psalms 23. (Lucky Star makes one receptive to references) Admittedly, some parts may be considered as over-reading

22:1 “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

22:10 “From birth I was cast upon you, from my mother’s womb you have been my God”

22:14 “I am poured out like water…”

22:16 “a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet”

22:18 “They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing”

22:31 “They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn – -for he has done it”

It is finished!

Amazing how this can be written so long before the real event itself happened. The Psalmist was praising Jesus long before he came! There’s probably even more meaning to it.

No doubt — not much reflection can be put into words here but showing a passage that may not be read by some is like the daily sending of one artic-

 

Destroy your alarm clock!

you men of little faith!

I heard this rather faith preacher lately (whom some, esp the more senior ones, consider rather extreme) — trust God to wake you up every morning, don’t bother with an alarm clock.

The reason why I wouldn’t do away with my alarm clock is very simple: I do not think that I will be awoken for the simple reason that God probably knows that I *need* the sleep. I am hoping to get 7hours a night ideally next year though. (and it’s 2am now already)

But let’s extend a bit of logic — we wouldn’t need to lock our doors either (which I wouldn’t mind), or even get insurance. Insurance after all is a waste of money to those who have enough confidence that they won’t get some disease or have their house burnt down.

Giving it some thought — I think why not? (despite being personally risk averse) I’m personally no gambler, but could it be argued that if you try preparing for a rainy day — the rainy day may come? I’ll need to give the issue a bit more thought.

But I don’t think i have much faith in the system of insurance. It is not in the interest of insurance companies to be giving out so much money as compared to collecting money from clients. I’d personally think that as much as they would try to uphold an image of trying their best to do all they can (which can be achieved via advertising), they will in reality try to cut down on costs – -the main cost being payouts to clients. The internal conflict of interest by a profit-motivated company is just too great. Their interest is most obviously to cut costs and maximise profits, not help people. Pardon this very cynical point of view — but I think that insurance companies and its agents like all people do want to earn as much money as possible.

If profit motive was a bad thing, why not have the a larger, more powerful body that udepends on taxes and not payment to oversee it? I’d have to give it more thought.

On a side note, it is Strange that while having property burnt down is at a lower probability and lower magnitude of harm than getting run over by a car, people still jaywalk anyway but buy property insurance.

Back on the issue of Safety Nets and what extent I’d apply them. I’d have to think more about it and consult people who are wiser and more senior to find out their thoughts. I shall do so later today. It may very well place them in an interesting dilemma as well hehe. But for now, Im setting the alarm clock for 8am.

btw, I really have a smashed up alarm clock in my drawer.

 

Advice?

I am right now in a rather reflective mood over a number of issues — most of which have no relevance with this post. It is approximately 3am by now about an hour plus since my last convo.

One wonders: perhaps sometimes people know more than you think they do or at least more than you do. There ought to be certain things that caused people to say certain things. More often than not, its something you don’t know, but there’s always a reason for it. Even if it may be a mere coincidence or casual remark, I’d believe that inevitability has set a reason for it or at least people’s good instinct may have brought it about.

There are few rules of life (they get more and more each time) one of them is to listen to advice as much as possible. Especially from more experienced people and people who know more about certain issues.

Another rule of life: never make anyone angry. As far as possible, avoid it. Regardless of whether its expressed or bottled up — the outcome can’t be nice either way. Heck, the side of me in control right now thinks that it is highly probable that some things go against my interest to uphold this principle. Then again, I have committed some grievances as well… Obviously, this applies to all people but receiving special warnings may mean an additional caution sign. Perhaps in such instances, I should stay away… It is after all better to be safe than to be kitchenknived sorry (dumdumdum, consequences.)

But is there more to just avoiding anger? What about never wanting others to be sad? what about always wanting others to be happy? These three may be one and the same but I’d think that the last two are greater. The first about Anger Aversion is an action that seems largely driven by self interest maybe even fear. The last two are more altruistic in my opinion. I think that nobody is able to show care and concern to someone they don’t care about regardless of the benefits that may follow. No doubt benefits may follow — but they are not the main focus, it’s true care and concern.

And that surprisingly is what I am striving for. Despite how cynical or pessimistic or even pragmatic, I have come to view friends not as mere “means to various ends” or income. I believe that they are in and of themselves valuable. (I’d rather not tag any terms to it right now, knowing the bad word choice and propensity to use a word with connotations of objects)

The thing is — it’s never easy. Not that I don’t want to, but I just don’t know what to do. I’d think I’m a rather bad source of comfort. Its not that I do not sympathise, I just can’t express it. Is silently observing while present the most that I am able to do? Perhaps a prayer I can offer even.

Right at this late hour (or rather early hours in the morning),  I’ve come to see Jesus more as a friend. Someone who is for sure available in my time of need. As a person who is extremely indecisive, that seems to be essential. Heck, it’d be essential even if i was more decisive. But giving it more thought has led me to realise that we don’t only spend time with our friend’s when we are sad, we want to when we’re happy as well. We want to as much as possible.

Reflections in this post-midnight hours have given me greater insight about Jesus and Man and myself. Yet, in any case, we must be wary of those who have bad intentions. I have heard of a story of a severe backstabbing recently driven by jealousy. Often when i used the term “judas” this year (for reasons of pur efun and teasing) I mean something more like Pang-Seh or abandonment. But on a more realistic note, this should be reserved for actualy plotting and turning against someone. Yes, people like that do exist. And I trust that Jesus will open our eyes and give us wisdom to discern who may bring harm to us and who we may be able to depend on.

 

Golden Compass (anti-Christian?)

Today I went to assess the movie that has gotten so much talk from churches, christians and parents. In fact, I went looking out for things to nitpick on in fact (and see the Big Polar Bear Aslan and Nicole Kidman as the White Witch). It hardly occurred to me how it could be in any way anti christian. Caveat: I’m talking  only about the movie here. I don’t care if the book is anti-christian, since the complaints yadda yadda are mainly to stop people from watching the movie. We must bear in mind that movies more often than not leave out a lot of material frm the original text and would prefer to leave out the controversial bits really.

The Golden Compass never did attack religion or God itself. Perhaps it did bring in alternative fantasy ideas such as daemons outside the body or Dust and other dimensions but many movies do as well without getting accused of being anti-Christian. Its central theme was more of how a governing organisation has too much power. The movie looks at the abuse and scandals of this huge governing Magisterium. Looking at how Nicole Kidman talked about the Magisterium deciding for people because they’re not smart enough to decide for themselves and how it is important to be obedient to the Magisterium, it seemed more like an attack on authority than religion. I wonder why the film has not been censored yet. “deciding for the people because they’re not smart enough to decide for themselves” does after all sound vaguely familiar….

Even if it was not attacking the government but drawing parallels to the church, it is not making an attack on God or the Christianity. It is pointing out the mistakes and abuse that Man make when placed in such positions. It’s exactly how Galileo was condemned as a heretic by the Church of his day despite his valid discoveries of the earth going around the sun instead of the other way round. And yet i don’t recall any history books mentioning this incident to be condemned as anti-christian. Any of such incidents or scandals or errors are not the fault of God or the religion, but the fault of Man. Ergo bringing up such instances does not equate to attacking the religion either!

If anything, it’s an attack on the Catholic Church/the Vatican, perhaps they’re truly an organisation with “governmental powers” (not to mention all sorts of Vatican Scandals for a long time in history). It’s only because similar scandals had happened before that the Catholics feel that the movie is picking a bone with them. Intercission, inquisition — what’s the difference? Nabbing children and paedophile priests — what’s the difference? In fact, I thought one of the actors on the bad side looked a bit like a certain current pope….

Which makes me wonder why so many “protestant”/non-catholic churches are speaking out against this movie. It puzzles me really. Perhaps some catholic person forwarded the email to her non-catholic friends by mistake -_-

Honestly, if an organisation did not commit similar abuses of power/attempt to remain in power through underhanded means, why would they have to speak up against a movie that attacks the abuse of power/attempts to remain in power? The issue certainly is not about turning people away frm God or causing their faith to falter — as if a mere movie is able to do that. And even if it could, then anything could! Surely we Christians need to have more faith!

I can’t understand, it’s probably some parental hype but things are getting overboard if even POKEMON starts getting regarded as demonic!

The irony of it all? By trying to speak out against the movie, it proves the book’s point in trying to show the Church as some all-powerful influential organisation that has a strong hold on people and being able to make people do as they say.

 

Everything is our fault.

not even our fault — my fault. (Clari: i am not emo.)

This really is in no reference to anything to happened lately, but it’s merely a note on life: if anything happens, we are to blame our individual selves. You specifically. Just you. This is especially so if we are affected by it.

It is either because we have done something wrong or we haven’t done enough to change the outcome. It’s always our fault really.

It’s not even the fault of others. Even if other people were in the hmm, same predicament and did the same thing… Even if other people are being demanding and hard to please etc. It still is our fault.

Because it doesn’t matter if it is the fault of others. We can’t do anything about other people. If we can and yet didn’t, then it’s our fault. The main issue is not about a blame game. It honestly doesn’t matter whether it was the Jews or the Romans or the World or Satan or God who killed him. There is no reason why we need to know who is at fault. There has to be a practical ramification behind every thought and philosophy.

It all boils down to what can we do. What are we able to do to change? All of us have the ability to change something. We may not be in the best of circumstances but we certainly can try to make the best of the situation. What is the most and best that we can do?

How, God, How?

And perhaps I just reached the first and most crucial part of the answer I was seeking.