ArOnIL

Of late, i have noticed, i may not be losing a person i know physically but it is brought to my attention of the amounts of deaths that suddenly has come around in the recent year or years. Friends whom have lost loved ones and all of them painful.

Just yesterday i read through a friend's email regarding a friend's suicide act. She didn't know the person very well, yet she felt the pain to lose a person known. I've only had one case where i lost a person i knew. I didn't know him well either but i knew him through a friend of mine. He was my friend's boyfriend..and he had died in a car accident. I didn't cry, but the shock was there and even not knowing him, there was a sense of lost, grief and pain.

It saddens me much when I hear of the death of a person, and i honestly do not know what to do at times. The other day just this year, another friend of mine just lost a friend she knew very well. She was just speaking with him a few days before and he was mentioning to her he'll come by and see her to hang with her. Few days after that, i was with her when she got a phone call, that he had passed away in an accident. She couldn't cry at the moment, she was in too much pain. But later on the tears came and she felt so much grief...

Then just recently this year, a friend of mine from uni had lost her father to a gunshot. Even though she had the company of loved ones and friends, i'm disappointed that i wasn't there to comfort her enough.

I have not seen death at any door of my friends and therefore i do not know the ultimate lost and pain that one would feel. My friend had mentioned in her email to fully appreciate those that are around us now. These are the same words of another friend of mine who lost loved ones last year as well.

Those passed on will not be with us pyhsically anymore, but they are always with us in our memories. We should be even more joyous, when we know that they have received the Lord into their hearts, the consolation is that even though we lose them here, we will still see them again in Heaven with the Father. We are again victorious even in death, for it does not bind us anymore.

I must say, at the beginning of my semester, i started with much vigour in being very interested in the topics. I truthfully and sincerely am interested in them, for they are not so much on communication itself.. despite.. it being called 'bach. in communication', but more so on humanities and social science.

I am still a freshie in terms of my faith, but that is another story. Two of my subjects entitled; Communication research and methodology, and authorship and criticism poses a lot of theories that makes one question the faith they believe in. Doesn't matter what faith it is, all faiths are questioned and challenged in the authorship class.

We're now goign into what is an author and how they have changed over the years since the enlightenment period to the post-structuralist and post-modernist view.

Let me see if i can do my lecturer justice by describing what is an author. What has been perceived to be an author, are people who not only just write, but people who are able to bring forth a story to life through their own feelings. Hmm.. A person who writes against what is potrayed or a norm in society mostly that of the English ideology, showing originality, to be considered a genius. The author is the epitome of that which is refined and sophisticated.. yada yada yada..

There was one i statement i could not help but disagree with. We learnt that the author, a person who has written text is no longer considered original or alive anymore. Whatever that is written these days is just a copy, improvisation, or a thought of another thought. The subconsciousness of the author takes over and then what is written could be not directly what is meant by the author but by his inner feelings.

The latter, death of an author, rather meaning that the person who writes his works, is actually not the one doing so, but rather the language takes over the person. I can't help but disagree with it, because then what about the Bible that is read? The author i beleive is to be God, because it is His Word. But if an author is dead then in the end, there really is no God. Of course one can argue that the Bible is written by humans and not by God directly Himself. But then again it is said it is inspired by God...

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

So if the Word is God, so how can they say that the author is dead and language has taken over. Then can that mean that 'nothing' has actually created the meaning? I think not.. and i think i'm rambling. I just can't accept the post-structuralist way. It is so harsh and i think it relates quite a bit with relativism, the idea all systems and beliefs go, as long as it is good for you.

Another thing i just can't agree with is how they question on our very selves. As in everything around us.. all institutions build us up. So if you were to take the analogy of yourself as an onion. The outer skins of that onion are what you believe in to be your original self. But in the end if you were to think about it, try peeling away all that you beleive in because it's not really from you but from things that influence you. Then you are actually nothing!!!?? Just like the onion which in the end has no core. Sigh.. stupid analogy. So we are actually nothing, our selves don't exist, we have no purpose cause we are just built up from other things.

The last time i faced that statement it was last year, i didn't know what it means to have a purpose. This time i faced it again just this week, and instead i really questioned. Am I believing just for the sake of believing? Or is because God is really real in my life? I choose the latter for my reasons. God is real and He is very much alive. PRAISE GOD!

In anycase i'm just saying that i can't agree with the posts stuff even if i am living in it. Hehehe i'm retaliating.

Before it all began,
Before it all made sense,
Before every single prayer,
Before every single plea,
Before my very breath..

You knew how it would start,
You knew how it would finish,
You heard before I cried,
You heard before I thought,
You created me and moulded me..

It all began with You,
Your Love, Your Grace, Your Mercy,
Your Word!

prayer 

It was brought to me actually just as a statement from a friend. "God had placed two trees in the Garden of Eden." From there it had ventured out into a question of why was it placed there to begin with. I discussed about it with my better half, and this is what i concluded.

In the beginning, God had placed two trees. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The reason he placed the two trees there was for the human race, the people he had created to worship to FALL! Yes my brothers and sisters. Adam took the fruit from the forbidden tree so that we may fall.

Now why are we suppose to fall? It is because of the person who started sin to begin with. Satan! he was the creature that began sin where there was none to even fall too. he is what one calls the primary sin, the sinner of all sinners. Being the worship leader of heaven, Lucifer the angel then, just had to have the glory be to him, and not to his creator. The sin that we hold is secondary, not pure sin. For before eating the fruit, men were considered innocent. Lucifer was deemed as innocent once too, but then in heaven there was nosuch thing as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there was only good. God didn't place any evil, but Lucifer turned evil naturally, thus becoming satan.

Unlike us humans we are not aware of the sin we do.
"Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. - Luke 23:34"
Satan on the other hand was conscious of the sin that he was doing. he knew he was retaliating against God.

It is due to that, God wanted to create the perfect beings to worship Him, and for all His glory. So He created man, and allowed him to fall short from His glory so that he will know how to choose between God and himself (evil). In this manner, man already knows about evil, the ways of evil and the result of evil = death. However man chooses to walk the path towards God and it is from there the mindset, priveileges and purposes all change. It is now all done for God and not for the man's self. Man will then refuse the ways of evil, when he leads God's people in the coming revelation. It is said in the bible, men will be given power and worlds to rule when we come to God's kingdom. But God wanted to make sure we help lead the people in the right manner.

So to conclude, God placed the two trees so that those chosen to help lead Him, :in the kingdom of Zion, will be prepared for the pains of the world and never fall short from God's glory. That is the purpose of the two Trees. To prevent sin from forming in heaven again.

I would call us as the new angels of worship to God. Where an angel had fallen, we are the ones to replace those that had fallen, along together with the other original angels. We are more than just angels then. We are ultimately God's people!

O, my Father,
How glorious Thy art,
For Thee has saved my worthless soul,
Wait not I can for Thy glory to behold.

Long do I for Thy kingdom,
Eagerly I wait for the Day,
When humanity and the world will fade away,
For that is the Day I return to Thee.

Amen!Amen!Amen!

This was originally a draft but i've decided to finally put it up.

Just yesterday, i was helping my lil sis out with a maths question. She is now doing circles and angles, where it involves knowing the basic angles when lines are drawn in a circle. Anyhow to not get mathematical cause i wouldn't know how to explain it without a diagram let alone in simple english. I said to her i won't help you for this question because it is easy, and the diagram is staring back at you in the face,it is very clear what the answer for the angle is if you know how to look at the diagram in the right way.

Sometimes i wonder whether that's how we look at life. We can know the basics, but in the end is our life like that diagram which we just can't seem to understand? Or despite knowing the basics we just can't be bothered to engage in further thoughts about them and how to put them into practise? Like how my sister knew the basics that was taught to her, but her mind either refuses to think or just can't comprehend the beauty of how the final answer is related with everything she has already learnt.

The simple stuff are easy to decipher because in the math examples they are all spread out and neatly written to just focus on the particular formula or question.
Take for example algebra. Usually what we look for is the "x" in a question given.
eg.
1. 4x = 8
x = 2

2. 4x + 6 = 26
4x = 20
x = 5

3. x² = 4
x = √4
x = 2

Very simple and straight forward. But now if you were to include other ways or even combine all the questions up above, then the answer becomes harder to find. Consider now a math question like so.

(x² + √36)(4x - 29)x = 158
x = ?

I'm not going to do the calculation for the last question. But ultimately in the end you will get on definate answer. In maths anyway you always get one absolute answer. Because all the methods or deductions point to only one answer.

But when placed with other questions on angles she just couldn't make conclusion of how to get the answer. Is that how we are sometimes as well? Are we so surrounded by too much influences from the media that we can't seem to focus anymore or even know how to differentiate from that which is real or fake or true and untrue?

Now say if we were to replace the "x" with the word truth. Then we can look at it in the same way. There is only one truth and only one way isn't it. The other numbers and symbols next to the "x" can be considered as external input that just makes the "x" more difficult to understand, comprehand and also to finally conclude.
If truth was anything like maths, there would be one answer. Naturally in a Christian view, we can say that truth is God. He is our big picture that we have to come to see.

So now i would like to believe that everyone else out there, is pretty much like the person doing the math question. Everyone is trying to figure out what is truth and what is it they are missing in life. Along the way they have other input to help them finally come to a conclusion of their own. But in the end is that conclusion of "x", the real answer? It could just be part of the steps to getting to "x" but some would think they already have all the answers to life in their hands. Pretty much like the post-modernistic time we are living in now, where science is believed to answer all that questions. It should also be noted that the supernatural can't be answered by science alone.

Our biggest picture and biggest truth, lies in the hands of our Father in heaven. Need i say more?

I should have stated this at the beginning of my blogging days.

Before i begin my good people, i just want to state that the text you read here is for you. Whether you wish to read it and how you interpret it is entirely up to you. Whatever that is here, is not about my thoughts and my life events, but my observation on a few things that comes along my way. What is put here is what i think seems to be either of amusement, funny, or worthy to be blogged.

Now having made a title such as the above, people would think that i have renounced my gender.

I have often defended the behaviours of women, as naturally i am one. But now it is time i come to face facts and see that our behaviour is not at all appealing at times, if one where to think about it. I have noticed that there are a few things in men that actually do make them more the dominant of the two genders. Which is how God intended it to be. But due to post-modernism, there has to be the battle of the sexes as to which gender is better.

Females have always told their male counterparts, that they can never be understood because females are just too complexed, yet simple at the same time. How contradicting and paradoxing is that? Females are just complex and that's that. Not both. Men are really like how they say are the ones to be simple and that is true. Tkae a look, when men say one thing, the natural instinct for a women is to find the 'hidden meaning' in their sentence. When truthfully, there is no hidden meaning. What the male says is one passive sentence, one way and there's nothing to read between the lines. However for a woman, they have hidden meanings in their lines. And they expect the males to figure it out when they are truthfully blur. Has anyone noticed that when males joke, they talk in secret codes? Yeah wel goes the same for the women and how they talk. The men aren't women so don't you think it is time that they should stop trying to make the men talk like them?

Following that, comes the good ol' habit of females to assume and to think negatively. Why bother assuming when it only gives personal conflict as well as conflict with the others around you? Men do not assume, they are just plain well either blur or that are sure of themselves. That's a good point actually. It is due to this, i can make the statement, therefore thats why females are actually insecure. And require a good amount of security from time to time. Females when they assume they start to think of the bad stuff that could happen. Doesn't that just bring about a headache? Why do you think they tend to end up b****ing about one another? Doesn't matter whether it is foul language or not. Rather immature and sad really.

Women, say they are the more matured gender. How much of that is true. I have actualy begun questioning that thought for a while now. Sadly it can't be said that women are because women have a big factor that plays with them constantly and it is called EMOTIONS! They allow emotions to play with their being and thus it can cause them to do the uncalled for, unrational, and the wrong things. I'm not saying men don't have it, but it is more prominent in females.

Rather women, should remove the unrational parts of themselves, to a more matured state of mind, that is why God gave us a brain to begin with. Perhaps then, the battle of the sexes can finally stop and there would not be anymore miunderstandings and conflict.

Hmm.. should women complain about not being the main one on top? Did not God give the bigger responsibilities to the man. Women are meant to be the helpers. So why not be that helper and not the problem maker?

Science seeks to know more and more about less and less until it knows everything about nothing.

Philosophy seeks to know less and less about more and more until it knows nothing about everything.

How many of you can agree with these...statements? Or just this line for that matter?

I buy the first one, in where science is meant to find out more about something, until all has become revealed. But where philosophy seeks to know less about more? I feel it contradicts.

First let us understand what is philosophy. A combination of two greek words. Philo means love and sophia means wisdom. Hence you get philosophy = the love of wisdom. The meaning base on www.dictionary.com = "The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics; Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

To not get to studious here. Already it explains that philosophy is the 'investigation' of the subjects stated above, then how can it be considered to be knowing less and less. If one loves wisdom, how can they seek to know less as compared to knowing more. In other words i don't agree with the statement on philosophy, stating in the end they know nothing about everything.

Maybe if one were to make the statement "That person has his own philosophy", and if that philosophy to begin with is rather premature and nothing, then yes you can say that philosophy for 'that' person is redundant and he knows nuts about anything. Ok so fine maybe my opinion here is rather shallow.. feel free to sue me.

Philosophy is considered to be the irrational and science the rational, because it claims to be objective since they do not involve theology or the mercy feelings for the perceiver. Does tha tmean we think therefore we are considered to be irrational? If anything, we think and therefore we become logical and rational because it involves everything, from facts to the human feelings. Science however diregards human faith, emtion and thought, so actually they are not really objective either..just int he discoure of science they are considered to be. They've put up a barrier that goes "Ok that is theological, we won't have that kinda talk while we do our rational and serious research." Philosphers questions and answers base on their surroundings and the relationships around them. Science is more of an empirical structure.

My whole point? Well i don't know .. maybe it's because i'm thinking less and less now on more and more of the subject therefore, i have come up with no point.

I'll say this. Science may fail when there is no one to think up of the theory,philosophy will fail when no one continues thinking of the theory. Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind.

Silent...
When is it best to be?
Silence...
Whom for is it best?

Do thou dare refrain,
from sounding any noise?
Do thoue think thou can,
afford not any sound?

To speak, better is it
Or worse is it when thoue do?
Hold back the temptation,
restrain thyself from wars..

Wise be when thee utter,
words from thy mouth,
try not to stutter,
broken will be what thou mean.


Sigh ramblings yet again... of just something going through my head wish i would rather refrain from saying out loud...

Get a grip girl and go back to work...

How sad I be,
that I may have to,
speak to myself,
over through my own blog...

Back to work... back to work.. :P

Well well, the day has finally come where i have now gone back to my schedule of studying. But then again, my schedule itself sort of allows me to relax a little.

3 day weekend, only four classes and most not at an early hour.. how nice...

In any case, my first subject today and only subject for that matter deals with philosophy, critique and some mad hatters. The lecturer whom, i feel has a rather quirky side and yet somewhat appealing by nature, mentioned that we will have to get out of our comfort zone, or more so mindsets that we have been instilt with since young or what not.

Basically in this subject we are required to critique on particular issues and not look at them in a way the world would see them... Hmm i can say it reminds me very much of the line from the bible..."Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.."

Much of media studies so far..reminds me of not conforming to the practical ways that have been deemed to be allright by society. We go along with the flow of each action or way, but we rebel them with the different principles that we hold, if not possibly the different ideas or ideals that we have come to embrace.

On top of that he also mentioned how we are required to question the books, or theories that we will now face in our subject. Reminds me yet again of another thing which i read in my unfinished "great divorce"...sigh...The part on where there was a character who pretty much i gather as a philosopher, a thinker, a questioner. In the subject today, my lecturer commented that ther is no right or wrong answer, further more when we start writing our essays, our conclusions brings us to another conclusion....that there is no fixed conclusion...The philosopher in my "Great Divorce" had mentioned to another character in the book how he will always be questioning, cause he feels there will never be a final answer for anything. Is that really so? In anything there will not be any final answer?

I guess i have to look at it in its own context. Maybe in this sense there won't be any final answer, regarding the subjecy "Authorship and Criticism". No such thing as a final answer.. I don't think that possible. When putting faith and everything else involves God, you can always be sure that there is a final answer in the end. But will you be choosing the right answer? The right path way? Choices, choices and intrusions into the mind...

My my i'm rambling...anyways back to work now.