Music Box

Friday, June 12, 2009


One night i was heading to uni to study. While walking towards the computer lab, my flatmates and i watched a girl waving down a bus from the main terminal in the uni and missed it. It was a cool night at the time. Adding to her black clothings and black hair, she was hardly noticeable from any angle i have to admit. Thus she missed the bus right in front of us.

We watched her run across the parking lot to try desperately to wave down the bus for the last time to no avail. Dilemma creeped in. Both my flatmates prompt an action of kindness by asking one another should we help send her back. My mind was blanked. I'm put in a position to choose between studying for my finals and helping a total stranger. It was such a difficult 5 seconds. I hesitantly chose to say no and in addition defended my answer as being her fault for missing the bus.

That decision did not bring peace to me. I kept wondering, even now...... if i could have managed the situation better.
By every book, it is the expected action to help her isn't it?

And by every right, it is a person's decision to not help her as well isn't it?

Either one, it did not bring peace to my mind and heart.

I was certainly reluctant to help her because i did not know her and where she lives. In addition, my study was my priority. At the same time, i felt as though it was her fault for missing the bus. My reasons certainly lack substance, but is it something God wanted me to ponder about?

I thought about if that if i helped her, i should help others too, but i don't usually help people who miss the bus. What does that make me? A hypocrite? Certainly if my flatmates miss the bus, i would help send and pick them, because i know them and the relationship is different. Is that a good reason? I know i'm not the only one that ever feels this way. Many passengers on those bus would have thought about how if they could help, would they do it question too.

If i had listened to my flatmates and we sent her back, i could easily feel as unpeaceful as i am now, because of the fact that i was coerced to do so.

One thing i can be certain of is that, i had no intention of being involved in someone elses' problem, knowing especially it happens to everyone in their lives. Being involved in one particular incident doesn't make me a good person. It only makes me a bigger hypocrite. Another thing is the attitude of which the matter of my intention of helping. If i was forced, my attitude of helping is not right. People may say, it doesn't matter as long as the help was extended. There's more to just the help. What about the attitude? If i was coerced to help, i definitely know the attitude of my helping was wrong.

I don't really know what to think. It's puzzling. When i keep replying the incident, i was reminded of this verse in the Bible from Matthew 7:3

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

It sort of reminded me about my decision and from the attitude perspective, not the action perspective. I know from the action perspective, i was a dick for not helping already. But from the attitude perspective, it was clear to me from the passage that it reminded me of my attitudes towards helping others.

Jesus reiterates in the passage above about how we tend to judge people blatantly, without first looking at ourselves, knowing we too are not perfect and in every way are like the ones we judge. The passage tells us about how we ought to look into our own eyes by taking out the plank, before we look into our brother's eyes and take out his sawdust.

Just from that, i know clearly that if i had helped the girl, i was a hypocrite because i did not have the intention to help. I am more inclined to help those closer around me because they are the planks in my eyes. My reasons would be more justified by helping friends who need me most, than strangers because they are the ones whom i have to deal with in my daily walks of life. Helping a stranger while disregarding the people closer to me, when they are the ones that need me most makes me a hypocrite, and whatever help i have given is by no means justificating my intentions which wasn't sincere.

Ponder upon this,

What are your intentions when lending a helping hand?

ps: 2 posts in one nigth. Read the one below as well

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Question of an omnipotent being

Have you ever wondered the word god really refers to a being that is all powerful and all mighty?

Do you think the word god is just a term to define something/someone?

Do you wonder if people just made god(s) up as civilisation moves on?

In my own words, i believe that God is all powerful and all mighty, that the word god is not just something that describes a force that is not human, but a name given to it (note the caps) and I believe God existed and made men, not men made God.


There are reasons we can easily gather from our knowledge of this world to supress God's existence and His importance in today's society. From my own experience and criticisms, i can point out a few. These are what atheists usually say when asked about the existence of God.

1. God cannot be seen and touch.

Of 5 of the human senses, these are perhaps easiest indicator used to identify an existence. It is true, that God has no face anyone can paint, nor does He have a solid physical structure that anyone can easily recognise. Even more compelling is the idea that a God that cannot be seen and touch can talk and act. Atheists' question as to why such a powerful being is unable to show itself but still "controls" humanity.

Here's a simple analogy. Can you see air? No. But does it mean it isn't there? Quite easily atheists' will counter this argument empirically by saying that the quantities of air and its content can be tested and proven while God cannot. Says who? God made the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in it from the soil to the trees, to seas and to mountains, to gold and silver. Who is to say God's creation is not an evidence? What seperates God from men, is that God is a creator, men are discoverers.

No man has ever created anything out of nothing. Men manipulate what the world has to offer to make something new. It is always said that the Wright Brothers invented the first airplane and that was how aviation today was borned. In other words, created. I am more inclined to believe that men discovered aviation by using the theories of aerodynamics and physics made by God.

Men may not see God himself, but does that mean He doesn't exist? Men have made hypothesis, theories, arguments and debates but has never come to a conclusion because men cannot disprove God's inexistence. How ironic right? That it is so difficult for men to prove something that cannot be seen and touch doesn't exist, yet fail to do so.

I have never seen a panda in my life, does that mean it doesn't exist? It boils down to the notion of my attitude towards something. An atheist chooses not to believe in God because he/she has the freewill to do so, and by choosing, he/she omits the possibility that there is a God. In effect, atheists choose to not want to see and listen. Can you see the bias? It is not the issue that they believe in God's inexistence because it is true, but more towards choosing not to believe. Easily said, i choose not to believe in pandas, because the foundations and charities that support them are fake. How blatant can i get?

God 1 - 0 Atheist

2. Men made God

The idea that deep down inside each of our hearts, we yearn for something when we are lonely, thus the idea that civilisation in the ancient days made God to overcome the vacant spiritual needs is an psychological explanation of society creating God to instil unity and community.

What then is the rational behind making a god for men? If men made god, wouldn't men be god or perhaps greater? And if men were god, wouldn't men be able to overcome death, create something, be superior?

It is true, that men have made gods for their own needs, but is it easily believed that that was the only purpose? To fulfil a need? Atheists say that out of the will to be controlled, men made God so that their futures and purposes can be guided by a supreme being, thus labelling religious societies 'weak'. If men made God, wouldn't men be all powerful, able to create and over come death? The answer is no. You don't need experiments and research to prove it because all three criteria cannot be fulfilled by men.

God 2 - 0 Atheist

More to come....