|
LWBrightStar
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Leo
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
Gender: Male
Interests: Jesus, My God, My beloved one, Love, Nice people, Investing, International Law, Artsy Films, Thinking - Philosophy, Religion, Politics, and Social Theory
Occupation: Research and development
Industry: Legal
Message: message me
AIM:  LWBrightstar
Member Since:
2/6/2006
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I had originally wanted to delay writing about love until a much later time, sufficient for me to both digest
philosophically and emotionally the issue. Yet it has been three days since I last wrote, with regards to an
emotional experience, and although three days seems short for any university student, having counted time in
hours or days, these three days at an English Christian camp, definitely requires some note.
However, it is not my desire to write with regards to the camp itself, surprisingly. That note, about the
religious justification behind such a camp, has been written, but requires much revision. I am here to discuss
recent thoughts that I have come across, originating from comments by fellow Christians that I have met during
the camp.
A certain comment was raised as with regards to whether Christianity was an emotive religion. The certain member
insisted that Christianity was above emotion, that it originates in a state of knowledge, rather than emotion.
Through this the member reprimanded that New Age, and other "religions" or beliefs could not live up to the
standard that Christianity presented. I must say: What total rubbish! I have never heard such scandalous words!
No statement of truth can be seen as self evident, external proof or justification must be the basis of a claim.
Even if we claim that faith is in action, faith acts on the basis of some justification. To claim, "I just know
that this is true", is just not good enough. Any philosopher, thinker, or simply a person who desires to use a
little part of their brain, would see that not supporting their beliefs can easily allow other absurd "truths" to
stand. It is true that faith is crucial in one's belief. But faith is not mindless belief. It was once
justified belief in a particular instance, hour, minute, second; faith enters the picture when that justification
changes or no longer exists such that the belief carries on to be justified. Faith is therefore necessary for
this "no longer justified belief". This belief isn't false because it is no longer justified, but neither is it
true, because it lacks justification. Faith is the belief that the original justification for a particular truth
is still acceptable even when that justification no longer exists due to altered circumstances or experience. I
believe some examples are necessary to elaborate this definition. I have always advocated the belief that faith
is required in determining the existence of God. I have seen the deficiencies of logical arguments (those not
based on emotion) as unable to please the reasoned mine on this issue. Indeed I am fully convinced that it is
impossible to "prove" the existence of God, by way of Tillich's argument, God does not exist in the way we
conceptualize existence. Existence for us rests on opposites, something can exist and not exist, whereas God can
only exist. Then the "existence" of God most definitely requires some external justification which prompts such
knowledge, yet this justification is only temporal, in order to necessitate the usage of faith, which we all
recognize as necessary in the belief of God. If the justification exists permanently, then faith is no longer
necessary, because knowledge and justification corresponds perfectly.
Some would argue the Bible suffices to be a justification in of itself, yet although many Christians believe that
the Bible is God-breathed, or divinely written, the limitations of language itself restricts the expression of
the limitless. It is therefore necessary to base the belief of God which exists in such a different way from
things on Earth, on something that predates, or is primeval to language itself: emotion. We should be quite
comfortable with emotions as Christians. Proverbs mentions that "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge", this means that fear itself is not the foundation of the knowledge of God, but merely other knowledge
derived from God. The knowledge of God must then be based on something else other than fear. I would boldly
suggest love, since "God is love". Not only is this theme prevalent in the Gospel of John, but it appears in the
Epistles of Paul as well. It seems that love must be the original matter which God is. God is thus not the
essence of being, but rather the essence of love. The question of whether being is love surfaces, but must be
tackled at another time.
Consequently, love must be the source of knowledge of God. The knowledge of God cannot simply be blindly
permitted by faith, but this faith must be grounded it some foreknowledge. Indeed, how otherwise could a person
who places faith in the fact that a cup lies behind the curtain, without being first "told" that there is a cup
behind the curtain? Indeed the same foreknowledge: love is used, such that we can have the same knowledge of
God
in the end. If we began with knowledge out of the blue, it would be impossible, or less possible to ascertain
that we all believe in the same God. But wait! Don't Christians believe in the same God, because their God died
for them on the Cross for their sins? True enough! And that this act is based on love. The Gospels rest on
this emotion which we all share in common, and that is why the Gospels are divinely breathed, because they aspire
to instruct regarding this emotion.
| | |
| Again, it has come again. Depression. In a much different way this time. It is a sense of despair that there
would not be happiness ever again, I believe very much that this is how the presence of a Dementor would feel
like. No, it is much more a feeling that I will never feel a sense of accomplishment ever again. My spirit, the
very core of myself that provided me with vigour, has simply been zapped out of me. I admit though that this
deterioration occurred gradually, but it is now that the realisation of this deprivation is at its optimum.
Why me? Why me, God? Why am I such a failure? I have achieved so little over this summer. Tutoring, driving,
investing...there is hardly anything to mention and to profess that I have achieved something worthy of myself.
Then it is through these questions that the belief that there must be a purpose for such lack of achievements.
What has God planned for me over this time? I still do not know. I am in the no being, am the no being, is the
lack of being. It is in these situations of such great deprivation that I find that I finally understand the
words of Ecclesiastes. Money is worthless. Wisdom is worthless. Toil is worthless. The worthlessness of these
three things is real. Ecclesiastes 11:8, becomes so real in depression: "But let him remember the days of
darkness, for they will be many. Everything to come is meaningless." Why do we care about these things? why
should we care? I see during this period of reflection and anguish that I am truly from a different world. I am
a wanderer. This world somehow disgusts me, and I have lost hope in this world. Why didn't Solomon feel this
way? Why wasn't he in despair? Everything around me crumbles to nothingness. Every strive in this world for
riches, wisdom, pleasures, has ended up jealousy and hatred, things which I despise, things which I am a victim
of. I do not now want to exercise those very things that have brought me through experiences that although have
shaped me the way I am, are those things which etched a scar in my heart.
Let me reassure you, my friends out there, that this is not some suicidal note. For those who know me well, the
likelihood that I would commit suicide is zero. Zilch. I have not completed my purpose in this life, and there
is no way I would betray God's command in this fashion. Thought I admit I am still uncertain as to how this
purpose can be accomplished. Meanwhile, the big white elephant in my life still lies dormant along with the
various skeletons in the closet, all tidily hushed up in a corner. I have long sought connections with this
world, attempting to desire things that this world wanted of me, attempting to change myself so that I would be
what is desired of me, but those things are the very things I despise: deceit, disguise, hate. I will not stand
for that any longer. Does this then mean that I despise wealth, wisdom and work? Not in a million years. They
are important, but nevertheless are worldly. I desire God, for since God is love. I desire love. In all its
forms, a friend, a companion, a lover...the list goes on. I want love, I want to be loved and I want to love.
That I believe is the fulcrum of life. Its pretty simple to know that the gist of life is love, yet how does
that fit in with purpose. Interestingly, I looked to the Beatitudes for this:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
All these are attributes of love, of lovers. (Yes the Nietzsche voice is already probing at me about this part
of the Sermon of the Mount, but we'll keep that hot potato in the bag for a while and leave it for another time)
It is then once again the line regarding peacemakers that catches my eye. (This is why my passion has always
been with the UN) I will stand by what I am because it is the right bestowed upon me by God through the right to
love. I will stand by these values which God has entrusted upon me to uphold. This is the yardstick I stand by.
There now you know much more about me. Yet who knows, perhaps soon I will change, or not. I wait in hunger
for the love that I have sought.
| | |
| As I meditate on the Law, sometimes I feel that man has lost all hope. Man has so deviated from what is true, that it seems no longer possible for man to return. Has man forgotten? No. But rather man has pretended to forget. Dabbling in all that which is untrue, yet inside him wrestling with the truth written on his heart. Am I alone to think in this way? Why has man done this, when the path of truth is so much more delighful? Is it really just true that man desires short term gains, instant satisfaction, reliquishing that which is in the long term? Or has man deviated so much that he has forgotten how to return to truth, and only with the spare fragments of his map does he get lost in the wilderness of temptation.
What has happened to this world? With fashion shows showing more flesh than fashion, sex performed for sex alone, where is love I ask? What are the purposes of these actions? Instant satisfaction? Monetary gains that will lead to love? Show me, for I do not understand that at a point where the world is soaked with propserity that we still so hinge on money, so fixated on sex, when...isn't it true that we've beyond this by now? We want more, we hunger for more...
You can call me conservative. I'm not writing the please the liberals here. I'm merely begging them to show me what sense of purpose they have in all this. Our generations lacks this very thing, the spiritual resources that instill in the individual an own set of moral scheme. I'm not only talking about religion, that is one of the ways. To take a secular approach, our generation lacks directions, lacks a sense of community, lacks the willingness and ability to community interracially, lacks self esteem. The goals of our society are frivallous, freedom is used with such rampant waste. How I ask can we live up to those who have built, cherished and fought for this freedom?
We no longer live in the shadow of WW2. The horrors of the lack of freedom, discrimination, prejudices are no longer in the back of the minds of our generations. We take freedom and equality for granted so much that we think they simply exist, burying ourselves in some hole so we won't open our eyes to see how society has collapsed.
Sad is the path of man is walking. We speak so highly of our right to freedom, but does not right come with duty? some form of responsibility? Where is this gone? Where will man go?
| | |
|
Untitled, as unworthy of title
-distorted snapshots from a thought experiment
Fear – Misunderstood – Fear –
Misunderstood ….
Alone – Darkness in the Heart
– emotionless – singular – contemplative – Alone with God – Pariah – sans
société – isolated – desolate – me – myself Anger – Real Anger – Fiery
Fire – Spreading as the wind blows – hush hush, let the fire roar - Passion
Desertion – Soldier – War –
Army Tribunals – Guatanamo Bay – Extraterritoriality, away from Law – Christians
free from Human Regulation
Seeker – to find – magnifying
glass with a Sherlock Holmes complexion – archeologically looking – books, old
and tatty like manuscripts – burning books, burning to midnight oil - to find the truth
Hatred – to hate –
detestation – revulsion – throwing up, vomiting – getting it out of your system
– put it aside – to forget, to forget the past and live for the future
Love – cuddly – hug – hug
tightly – to embrace – to hold on to what you believe
Jobless – Unemployed – social
security – security in the society – safety net – safe – support – given a
chance to live … to live for God
| | |
| Article 73
The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions;
| ( 1 ) |
To enact, amend or
repeal laws in accordance with the provisions of this Law and legal procedures; |
| ( 2 ) |
To examine and
approve budgets introduced by the government; |
| ( 3 ) |
To approve taxation
and public expenditure; |
| ( 4 ) |
To receive and
debate the policy addresses of the Chief Executive; |
| ( 5 ) |
To raise questions
on the work of the government; |
| ( 6 ) |
To debate any issue
concerning public interests; |
| ( 7 ) |
To endorse the
appointment and removal of the judges of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of
the High Court; |
| ( 8 ) |
To receive and
handle complaints from Hong Kong residents; |
| ( 9 ) |
If a motion
initiated jointly by one-fourth of all the members of the Legislative Council charges the
Chief Executive with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses
to resign, the Council may, after passing a motion for investigation, give a mandate to
the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form and chair an independent
investigation committee. The committee shall be responsible for carrying out the
investigation and reporting its findings to the Council. If the committee considers the
evidence sufficient to substantiate such charges, the Council may pass a motion of
impeachment by a two-thirds majority of all its members and report it to the Central
People's Government for decision; and |
| ( 10 ) |
To summon, as
required when exercising the above-mentioned powers and functions, persons concerned to
testify or give evidence. |
Article 74
Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region may introduce bills in accordance with the provisions of this Law
and legal procedures. Bills which do not relate to public expenditure or political
structure or the operation of the government may be introduced individually or jointly by
members of the Council. The written consent of the Chief Executive shall be required
before bills relating to government polices are introduced. To me, Article 73 and 74 seemed strange to me after reading substantial amounts of Locke. To place limitations on the legislature, especially when the executive is not (directly) elected seems to be undermining political legitimacy. Traditionally, it would have been appropriate for the executive to play a role in the legislature during colonial times but now with the assumption of political parties in the legislature, I feel that the executive should play a much more of a administrator rather than an executor. Therefore, to approach a parliamentarian or a legislative based democracy, I would not support "Universal Sufferage for the Executive" in 2007 or in anytime soon. Rather, legitimacy and democratisation should run through the legislative in order to put caps on the executive, instead of a fight between legislative and the executive, the legislative should direct the executive. I was particularly startled by the clause "Bills which do not relate to public expenditure or political
structure or the operation of the government may be introduced individually or jointly by
members of the Council." Surely political structure, and the operation of the government would be well under the peripheries of the legislature, because this is the very idea which would legitimise Article 73 (9). How confusing and contradictory. I think current legislators should target article 73 and 74 as a compromise. To me, these two articles are not only contradictory, but politically and socially deprived and should be the target of future judicial review.
Then again, Article 73 does give many traditional legislative powers, i.e. the strings of the purse, which has been heavily used as leverage in the United States. Perhaps the legislature should consider this also as a leverage on the executive in the future especially when a particular party or coalition gains control over the legislature, which then again, is not the control over the purse, presumably mean that the legislature has control over the general operations of the executive. There, there, why aren't the lawyers in the legislature using these powers. Are they just acting like lawyers and not politicians or something? Then again a little political and social theory could perhaps have helped.
| | |
|