Sunday, January 22, 2006
:: Grace abound much more ::
for the sensitive (or by now, paranoid), it might be glaringly apparent that i am about to embark on a "religious entry" (as usual) and decide to stop reading here, but of course i have no control over you reading my blog selectively..
what i do hope for a curious and open mind on your part to embrace what i say as a reflection of the Jean you've come to know. a Jean, whom i hope, reflects the character and heart of the God she worships and has come to love dearly.
a few days ago my mum spoke about my uncle venturing into buddhism after his retirement. he had recently taken up meditation, a diet of brown rice and a 5-day spiritual retreat to kwang ming shan. of course, he's married with 2 daughters (who both had their weddings last year) and has no intention whatsoever to become a monk.
without any promting, mummy continued to elaborate that when someone wants to chu1 jia1, the believer must clear his mind of sinful thoughts and desires for indulgence before a temple deems him sufficiently sincere/worthy to reside in isolation from the world, chant scriptures and begin a new life that intensively seeks to attain enlightenment.
i dare only say what i know about this religion to be true, and that is monks are required to adhere to the 212 rules of Buddha. with the teachings of Buddha being central to their beliefs, obedience to such a code is one of the requisites to attain enlightenment.
but how did Buddha know what was good or not if he wasn't the one who called the shots? if he had depended on what his conscience told him was good or bad, how is his conscience different from yours and mine? in a post-modern world where the circle of acceptable/moral behavior is pushed further from the inside, how can a man (albeit having attained enlightment, but still non-God) hold on to the credibility and relevance of his teachings in a generation whose minds are rapidly lost to the ideas of evolution, religious pluralism and skepticism?
i'm not saying christians are doing any better, nor am i questioning the quality of the teachings of buddhism, but rather its origins. if an indian prince such as Buddha himself lived as a man, he was under the law of nature. to be in the Law is to be under its mercy. for someone to make Law, he or she is to be outside and above the Law.
for a faith actively preaching goodness and condemning evil, and yet embrace atheism, i wonder how then do they know what is good or not when there wasn't a standard of perfection for their reference. since evil is the deviation from the way things ought to be, what ought to be in the first place if everything came about by mere chance?
i wonder how often all of us find it almost impossible to repress what we ought not to think or do, simply because it is against our very nature to do so. that as we sit there knowing we have let ourselves down, if we were aware that this burden of sin is not ours to keep. that everytime we grieve over our inabilities to be 100% pure and obedient that God is calling out saying "I will give you rest" and that His Son has already paid the price on the cross because God, being our Creator, knows that we cannot save ourselves even if we hide away in a limestone cave in the outskirts of Yugoslavia.
we should neither resign to our fate as sinners nor have wrong motives for being obedient (motives other than because God loved us first and that we're obeying out of faith and love). the gift of grace may sound too good to be true, but such is the great love God has for us, though we have turned against Him countless times. as lydea used to say, "is it so hard to accept a God who loves you more than you love yourself?"
don't all religious teachings teach us to be good people? why, yes they do. but then again, why settle for photocopies when the original is already in your hands.
But can he want the grape, who hath the wine?
I have their fruit and more.
Blessed be God, who prosper’d Noahs vine,
And made it bring forth grapes good store.
But much more him I must adore,
Who of the Laws sowre juice sweet wine did make,
Ev’n God himself being pressed for my sake.
- George Herbert "The Temple" (1633)
4:37 PMTuesday, January 17, 2006
your apartment never felt so big....
until you start mopping the floor.
what's with me and big spaces lately?
i promise i'll stop. =)
11:03 PM
Saturday, January 14, 2006
pardon me.....
but i have bloggers' block.
oh *sniff*.
11:26 PM
Thursday, January 12, 2006
:: Two large lighted candles ::
come celebrate with me....
my last day as a teenager. haha.
1:31 PM
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
:: I cannot measure ::
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
"The Love of God", stanza 3. Frederick M. Lehman, 1917.
6:57 PM
Saturday, January 07, 2006
:: The Perfect Man ::
the Bible gives us great insight into Jesus' personality.. many a times He has reflected wit, profound wisdom and a great sense of humour in His words. His deeds have taught us what it takes to be kind, loving, faithful and merciful..
His sacrifice, an act of obedience and humility.
but Jesus was not just any man.. but God incarnate, and the Resurrection screams "Deity!" to anyone who believes He existed.
surely, Jesus Christ is the best man any woman can have in her life..
and i know i'll have Him if i allow myself to. He's the best thing that's ever happened to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way.
here's to other women after God's own heart. it's no secret who our greatest love is!
11:20 PM
Friday, January 06, 2006
:: Woohoo! ::
new blog layout! thanks to tomodachi's photoshopping.. i like i like. heh.
11:41 PM
*blog updates*
- added a section of "verse of the day" in the left frame.. courtesy of biblegateway.com
- new layout coming soon.. hopefully. =p
12:01 AM
This flooble chatterbox is temporarily unavailable. It will be back up shortly.
Layout by Jeanette
Email
