This song I first heard when I attended the fellowship inside UTS (University of Technology, Sydney) with my primary school friend, L, during my vacation to Australia.. Yup, it was a superb song.. =)

You can hear it from : http://kidung.com/player/with_all_i_am/player.html

With All I Am 

Into Your hands, I commit again

With all I am, for You Lord

You hold my world, in the palm of Your hands

And I am Yours forever

Chorus:

Jesus I believe in You

Jesus I belong to You

You're the reason that I live

The reason that I sing

With all I am

I walk with you, wherever You will go

Through tears and joy, i'll trust in You

And I will live in all of Your ways

Your promises forever

Chorus

I am currently reading Mere Christianity , and in pg 122, the illustrations about pride reminds me of one thing.. that we are indeed prideful creatures.. And as was discussed in the book, pride can manifest itself in many areas, including love.

The reason I connect it with love as the most important thing to discuss is that it is perhaps the most common area in which people (including myself) often fall. We often failed to realise that pride, not love, is what fuels us to react. What do I mean? Suppose a boy likes a girl, and what keeps him persistent after say, being rejected? Or maybe, let's twist the scenario a bit, what if they have long been separated, and the boy wanted to ask for a second chance to be united again? I think in every chance, we should honestly ask ourselves, what fuels us to do such things? is it pride or love? The question is important to be answered because if pride is the actual motivation that drives us, it simply means deception!

This would be another different scenario taken from the book : "But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you." Yep, perhaps you get the idea.. sometimes, when a boy gets rejected by a girl and he keeps on showing persistence, does it shows love? or something that sounds like 'how can I be rejected? I can't accept it!'. Or maybe, if a couple gets separated, and say, one of them was in the brink of getting another partner, and the old partner insists on reuniting back, is it because of pride? or love? Hmph.. this issue is very complicated, and important to be answered honestly by every person dealing with relationships.

Yep, indeed, pride often disguises itself into something else. To quote from the book : "What makes a pretty girl spread misery wherever she goes by collecting admirers? Or what is it that makes a political reader or a whole nation go on and on, demanding more and more? It is pride.."

And pride was said to be the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.... and remember the story of the devil..  last quote : "It was through pride that the devil became the devil.."

I write this not because I'm on the brink of starting any relationship, but because I think I just got 'enlightened' from reading Mere Christianity and I think I gotta save this idea somewhere..

First of all, the recipee of starting any relationships, well of course, all will know : love! But what is love? Well I just went to saw 'Superman' with my pri sch friend, H, and the sentence "Well everyone loves Superman" kept me thinking.. is it that kind of love that's required? Is love simply meant 'admiration'? Well if it is so, then it is too shallow I guess.

In Mere Christianity p. 109, it was said, love is not merely a feeling. And the love that's required towards starting a relationship must contain 3 components : it must be maintained by the will, it must be deliberately strengthened by habit, and it must be reinforced by the grace which both partners ask, and receive from God. Hmm..sounds simple isn't it? Well it's not that simple in reality, because it's kinda hard to distinguish 'love' and a mere 'infatuation'. And the reason it is hard to distinguish the two is because when you have infatuation upon something, you will find yourself 'trying make a habit of reaching that something'. It's like, you will ride a bike often if you 'enjoyed' it. So far, to love and to have an infatuation is indistinguishable.

Next, regarding the 1st point, what makes it difficult is to distiguish between the true 'will to maintain' and a 'will driven by infatuation'. It's easy to say willing at first, well everybody does! But it's hard to be honest to ourselves that whenever we say we are willing, are we really willing? Or are we saying that we will just because we're infatuated at that time? Yep..of course it is thrilling at first. Well..perhaps a true story from myself, just for a bit of an analogy, I just came back from Sydney, and I was 'thrilled' by the city! I really missed the cold weather, the cities, everything! But when I asked my friend that had stayed there for almost 2 years, he said that it was boring. Likewise being in Singapore I guess.. once I got really excited, but those excitement eventually wears off, and boredom comes. And I think when I were to stay in Sydney for too long I would get bored too, unless I could cover the boredom with a pure 'commitment' of staying there. So..now the question is how do we distinguish the two when we are in the state of being 'infatuated' and when ourselves is not in a dependable state to answer honestly? I think the solution would be to shape ourselves before we get 'drunk'. What I mean is let's make it as a 'reflex action', a habit, that when we utter a commitment, we would always fulfill it! This certainly needs practice, the aim to be making your 'body' used to that kind of 'reflex action'. Then only a 'will' would be secured.

The third point was God's confirmation. This could be 'faked' as well! Infatuation can have the power to make our views biased! We can pick up only the 'supporting' side and don't listen when God blocks the way. Then we would say that it is 'confirmed'. It was just like 2 people reading the Bible and one was reading black and one reads white. Indeed, data is not neutral, it is biased! (Imre Lakatos said it if i'm not mistaken). Well of course, to counter this there's no other way than to be more sensitive to what God says, and that means, having a close relationship with Him, and maybe we can ask honestly for His wisdom..

Ok, so far I've discussed, and now I would like to mention several pitfalls on relationships:

In Mere Christianity pg 135 : I think I just quote the whole paragraph :

"The Fool's Way - He puts the blame on the things themselves. He goes on all his life thiking that if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after. Most of the bored, discontented, rich people in the world are of this type. They spend their whole lives trotting from woman to woman, from continent to continent, from hobby to hobby, always thinking that the latest is 'the Real Thing' at last, and always disappointed'

Yep, indeed this is what would happen if we just based everything on feelings alone, or maybe we tried to have a will but not having a real one.

And another quote that suggests us not to take feelings for granted :

"It is simply no good trying to keep any thrill: that is the worst thing you can do."

Indeed, as I have posted earlier, love is not a measure of 'feeling' but a measure of commiting yourself regardless of your feeling. Feeling would die after sometime, maybe it's inevitable, I dunno, never been in a relationship before, but I think trying very hard to keep it, like trying not to get 'bored' staying in the country you're living in, well that would be stupid!

Finally, knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last, but feelings come and go...

(After all this nitty-gritty, some of you may complain : What if after sometime we know that we're not suitable for each other? Well, the answer may be because you lack research before you made the step.. But anyway, be known to you as well that there's no such thing as 'perfectly suitable', though i didn't mean in any way that it must already be 'suitable')

Yep, here it is. These few days i've been very much interested in the controversies regarding evolution, and it all started when the topic was first raised in my church. So i started to be active in online forums, read up online articles, and currently I'm reading a book from Ken Miller, a Christian and an evolutionist, titled "Finding Darwin's God".

All in all, after all the debates and arguments, facts and everything, I think I've come up to a conclusion. All those debates actually can't be reconciled! Creationists movements and evolutionist are arguing based on 2 different axioms! The Creationist, that majority are Christians, believe the 'Presence of God', while the Evolutionists, majority are 'Scientists' with different backgrounds, have another axiom. And what are the implication of the different axioms? As I noticed, the arguments thrown up by the Creationists, are philosophical in nature. While what scientists want is to be 'scientific', a hypothesis supported by a convincing data. Well, I am not implying that the Creationists are not 'rational' in throwing up those philosophical arguments. In fact, they are rational! Based on their axiom, or faith, in believing the presence of a supernatural being, I believe it is rational to deduce things such as 'intelligent design'. However, in the point of view of scientists, science is to be 'as objective as possible a deduction, from a number of data collected'.

Well, I put 'as possible' because science itself is not absolute! It is meant to give 'the best shot' to interpret reality based on a given set of data! And why do I say it is not the absolute? Science is not absolute because there is always a jump between the finite number of experiments done, towards the confirmation of a universal law! We simply can't establish the correctness of a law unless we go for an exhaustive number of experiments, that means, to confirm everything that extends across the dimensions of space and time, that they obey the law. For example, why would we consider F = m.a to be true to all objects when we just do experiments using a finite number of 'samples'? And why would we consider it to be universal and unchanging with time? You may say that it's induction! But induction is not science, well in a kind it is more towards philosophy! Meaning, faith! Well yes, indeed, science is not an absolute, but that's my point. That science, though not an absolute, needs to be 'as objective as possible', giving the best shot to interpret reality based on data. Some extrapolations, however, are inevitable.

Now, with this understanding, assuming that what I have read is true, I must say that I tend to agree with the evolutionists to say that indeed, it's not wrong. In fact, it is very logical to, so to speak, conclude that evolution is true! The evidences are quite compelling, though not enough to make it universal. (Well this is what I can say now since I was only told of the evidences and not seeing or analysing it myself). This conclusion might as well be imperfect, just like when scientists confirming hypothesis like that of F = m.a despite the finite number of experiments, and they have the results extrapolated to be applied to the universal. But science is meant to be that way! And one more thing, be known to you that science is cannibalistic! A theory simply won't stand and would breakdown if someone proposed another theory with a good explanation! And any scientists of course would be very interested in breaking another theory, anyone of them want fame! Just like Einstein breaking Newton's wrong concept that time and space is absolute.

What I'm trying to do now is to investigate the controversy. Well of course, I'm fully aware that there may be atheists, not all, who have hidden agendas and want the theory of evolution to stand clear just for the sake of their beliefs, but there are also some theists who have hidden agendas, that is, not to make their followers to become an atheist, or to find the numbers of their 'apparent followers' decreasing. But that's not the main point at all! we should be objective! We don't become a theist just because we need any evidence at all! Just like what was written in Hebrew. Well, what I can say is, don't worry. Science can't prove neither disprove religion since science itself is not absolute, and in another possibility, for me at least, I am not an expert in interpreting the Bible. I am still learning, and therefore I don't have an absolute interpretation. Perhaps I need to learn hermeneutics soon. But my stand is clear. Let's be objective towards this issue. We may become a religious person, and yet we need to find out the truth! Also, we must understand that we must also be objective towards science, and don't turn philosophy based on our axioms into apologetics that relates to science, for it just won't work for 2 different axioms! Finally, for theists, just a little suggestion (as well for myself), be close to your God since this is where the testing point is.. or maybe, where devil might have the chance to do his work... Let us seek God and ask for His wisdom to guide us through. 

(P.S. : And for all of you wanting to know about the compelling evidences I read about evolution, I recommend reading 'Finding Darwin's God' by Ken Miller)

God Bless~ =)

P.S. : Right now i'm feeling very strange, because what i had seen as evil may not be evil at all! And if the implication of evolution is correct, that means a whole, total shift in my concept, or my picture about things, about Eden, on how everything began. I dunno..it just feels weird.. nevertheless >_< Nevertheless, i know that the new picture is still, not contradictory with the Bible... though it may be a bit weird

I just finished reading 'Finding Darwin's God' by Ken Miller. And here goes my story.. Phew!

Firstly, let me state my stand that, despite all those arguments presented in the book, it does not convince me enough for me to believe in evolution! Well, i may tend to believe it during the first time i read the book, the argument sounds so convincing, adorned with all those evidences mentioned. But I realised that something has been really wrong. I was too carried away by what I call the 'watching a movie' syndrome. After you think it through, well for me, after I summarised all the facts and the conclusions drawn, I realised that it was not that conclusive afterall! What makes it looks convincing is how the author has argued his way along!

Well, here's my point, and this is scientific, not emotional or even philosophical. I realised that there are still some 'holes' in the theory of evolution that makes me hard to believe. Not because I am a Christian and so Christians are Creationists, I'm trying to be honest to seek the truth behind evolution. Well here are some questions that needs some answer, and which I think (for the present time) as counter-evidence against evolution :

1) Supposed the theory of evolution is true. How does it account for the change in the number of chromosomes accross species? For as far as i know, mutation, the driving force of evolution, changed genes within the same chromosome. And if supposed adding/subtracting chromosomes is possible, why would the change of the number of chromosomes accross groups, or species related by ancestor-descendant, be drastic?

2) How do we explain whales and dolphins in evolution genealogy? Since they are mammals but live in the sea. One might argue that maybe they came from mammal species that lived near the coastline, and due to predators they moved back into the sea. But then, if that's the case, we should have a fossil of 'whale with limbs', to provide its locomotion on land!

3) If evolution is true, why are the present apes do not undergo evolution and became 'tarzans'?

Well, there may be many questions that i don't know the answer yet, but what really bothers me is that, if it was said that evolution is possible, and we can produce evolution rates in the lab that is 10000000 times the rate of ancient evolution, why can't we simply prove a speciation like turning a fish into a toad? ok..so far this was my argument, pls enlighten me if you're informed about any of these, thx =)

Faith, as I conceived it, always forms a basis upon which we see things. However, unlike evidences which usually came from the past or present (objects or experiments), faith extends itself through time, far towards the 'infinite' future. Since the future is defined to be infinite, and we are (arguably) exposed to a certain level of uncertainty, that perhaps we might be mistaken (since we're imperfect beings with imperfect judgements), this really puts faith at its end!

Take for example, abiogenesis. We knew there are counterevidences to that theory, but why would we still uphold that theory?? We knew that Miller's experiment was irrelevant as it misrepresents the condition of the early earth's atmosphere, and yet many scientists would still 'believe' that in the future there will be some other scientists with their theories that can completely explain the origin of life! Isn't it faith? Where does it come from? Does it came from evidence? I think it's more towards our perceptional tendencies or feelings, guesses, intuitions, you name it.

But here's the real problem. Since faith extends towards the infinite future, and evidence just talks about the past and the present, and the future have the power to make the present and past obsolete, therefore evidence can't disprove or prove any faith!!! Of course we can make a logical and reasonable extrapolations towards the future, but we can't say that there are enough evidence to disprove / to prove any faith! I don't mean that apologetics are obsolete, it's been good, but to put it scientifically, we can't predict anything at all, not even a theory with a 100% scientific certainty!! 

Therefore, this seems that we've given equal advantage towards both ends of faith. Take the equation 2+2=4 for example, one party (A) says true, and one party (B) says false. A might argue that it is true since it has been true all these time, and it is logical! B however, might say that all human beings are exposed to the chance of being mistaken and perhaps in the future we might find out that 2+2=4 and realised our 'past' mistakes. However, we won't notice that fallacy now since we haven't reached that point in the future where we would achieve a higher level of understanding. But we know that something has to be wrong with B's faith!! Well..it's easy to say that we have faith in something, but the 'true' faith will stand out clear, while the wrong ones will be left to delay their faiths towards infinity, an imaginary future that will never come towards present... Yep, faith is asymmetrical afterall..

I am on the brink of letting go of my tutoring, knowing that I've a pretty packed schedule next semester in which I wanted to boost up my CAP and I also have to cope for my service in ISCF. But someone told me today that what matters is our motivation! If you have the correct motivation, why give up? If it would be pleasant in His eyes, wouldn't He give us strength? So, let's just continue as long as we know we have the right motivation, and battle to the end! Maybe I have to leave all my hobbies for a while, chatting, blogging, i've wasted a lot of my time on all these! I know it will be hard.. but someone just reminds me that aren't we obliged for self-denial? Who says that the road ahead is gonna be easy all the time? So.. perhaps i will make a commitment, i wont waste too much of my time anymore, i'll still be tutoring, and at the same time i'm gonna boost up my CAP and be commited in my service. It's gonna be very difficult to cope, but i think i've decided to carry on. This is just a small hurdle in my life, and perhaps someday i'll have to cope with something of bigger magnitude compared to this. Yeah.. it's a learning process, which will be very tough, please pray for me anyone reading this post.. Perhaps if anyone sees me slacking, or chatting > 30 minutes can advise me to sign out.. from now on..