As darkness tries to nip my light in the bud, all I hear is songs of hope that I so much love. If you know me, then you know Casting Crowns is my favorite Christian band, you also know that my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. I look at the life my mother has lived, the path that she chose to walk,the tests and trials every corner of the way and I wonder, is life worth living in the midst of so much pain? Even Job cursed the day that he was born. It is in situations like these that I clearly understand why.
My heart is broken and all I can hold on to is the hope I have through Christ Jesus.I want someone to blame but, I have no one. I desperately want something to blame but, I have none. The hardest thing to grasp is that in His love for her, He still chose this story for her. He authored it in this way with cancer in the picture. It is hard for me to see how you will use this for your glory lord, but I choose to trust you no matter what.I hear Casting Crowns replaying in my ears, over and over and over...
"If we've have ever needed You
Lord, it's now, Lord, it's now
We are desperate for Your hand
I'm reaching out, I'm reaching out..."
I just want heaven to hold me tight
Hold my hand and tell me its alright
I want Jesus to whisper some words of comfort in my ear
and tell me that I will not lose my mum to this disease...
Yet I want his will, not mine to be done..
Casting Crowns again after tears and prayers...
"I was sure by now,God, that You would have reached down
and wiped our tears away,
stepped in and saved the day.
But once again, I say amen
and it's still raining
as the thunder rolls
I barely hear You whisper through the rain,
"I'm with you"
and as Your mercy falls
I raise my hands and praise
the God who gives and takes away.
And I'll praise you in this storm
and I will lift my hands
for You are who You are
no matter where I am
and every tear I've cried
You hold in your hand
You never left my side
and though my heart is torn
I will praise You in this storm"
I am still learning Lord, how to praise you in this storm.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
We hold these truths to be self-evident
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Indeed it is one of the most famous lines in the English language, so potent it not only changed America's history but, also the foundation of their nation. This is one of the most Godly foundations I have ever come across.
We- Plural, a group of people, not just one person. Who is "we" ?
hold these truths- truth...an absolute. What the case is.
to be self evident- their is no doubt about it, no evidence needed to prove it!it just is as it is!
that all men are CREATED equal: notice the use of the present tense "are" meaning man in still being "created" not evolving, not mysteriously appearing, not even born...but CREATED equal.
They are endowed by their CREATOR: Wow, interesting word choice!!!Their creator? The big bang? Evolution? or God? Our creator endowed us with something what is it?
with certain unalienable rights:Now if the creator was the big bang or evolution through the process of natural selection, then man has no rights. We are only a random product of chance. Chance cannot endow us with any unalienable rights. Not to mention natural selection depends on survival for the fittest!The only rights we would have then are are those of having the best genes to be passed on to the next generation and the ability to mutate fast enough to adapt to whatever environment.
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:What can give us a right to life? According to this bold statement- our creator. What about happiness? Happiness is an emotion.I don't know why and how a product of chance, a higher form of primordial slime would develop emotions...Charles Darwin forgot to explain that in his tree of life.Why does man have emotions? Why can he laugh, cry, get angry? Well, I don't know maybe this helps increase chances of survival.
How many atheists, agnostics and pantheists believe in this statement because man...this is a huge contradiction to your beliefs. Atheists, seeing as their is no God, it would be incorrect to use the words creator in this sentence. Seeing as the creator is the one who endows man with inalienable rights or life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can take out these words too, because their is no creator, he cannot endow anyone with anything! The whole sentence then becomes meaningless!!To agnostics well since we can't really make out whether or not their is a God, we can't really determine whether he gives us any rights. These truths cannot be self evident!They are unknowable! And finally for the pantheist,which creator?
We- Plural, a group of people, not just one person. Who is "we" ?
hold these truths- truth...an absolute. What the case is.
to be self evident- their is no doubt about it, no evidence needed to prove it!it just is as it is!
that all men are CREATED equal: notice the use of the present tense "are" meaning man in still being "created" not evolving, not mysteriously appearing, not even born...but CREATED equal.
They are endowed by their CREATOR: Wow, interesting word choice!!!Their creator? The big bang? Evolution? or God? Our creator endowed us with something what is it?
with certain unalienable rights:Now if the creator was the big bang or evolution through the process of natural selection, then man has no rights. We are only a random product of chance. Chance cannot endow us with any unalienable rights. Not to mention natural selection depends on survival for the fittest!The only rights we would have then are are those of having the best genes to be passed on to the next generation and the ability to mutate fast enough to adapt to whatever environment.
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:What can give us a right to life? According to this bold statement- our creator. What about happiness? Happiness is an emotion.I don't know why and how a product of chance, a higher form of primordial slime would develop emotions...Charles Darwin forgot to explain that in his tree of life.Why does man have emotions? Why can he laugh, cry, get angry? Well, I don't know maybe this helps increase chances of survival.
How many atheists, agnostics and pantheists believe in this statement because man...this is a huge contradiction to your beliefs. Atheists, seeing as their is no God, it would be incorrect to use the words creator in this sentence. Seeing as the creator is the one who endows man with inalienable rights or life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can take out these words too, because their is no creator, he cannot endow anyone with anything! The whole sentence then becomes meaningless!!To agnostics well since we can't really make out whether or not their is a God, we can't really determine whether he gives us any rights. These truths cannot be self evident!They are unknowable! And finally for the pantheist,which creator?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Ravi's Thoughts
Human disobedience is the greatest contribution to evil, yet we always use evil to justify the inexistence of God. If it was true that God didn't exist because there is so much evil in the world, then he must exist if there is good!Right? If you believe in evil you must believe in good.
No other god has wounds….
I do not know the answer to the meaning of evil but I do know love. Fyodor Dostoevsky
-If the universe is in effect, the only cause that could explain it(existence of the universe) is an intelligent being. There must be an intelligent designer who is the cause of its existence.
-Moral argument: Moral realities/categories only exist if God exists.
Moral realities/categories do exist therefore God exist.
How can an amoral universe, through non moral processes end up with a moral framework? How do we think? Primordial slime cannot properly engender why it is wrong to torture babies. Especially because Evolution is based on the destruction of the weaker.
Does God Exist? YES!WHY?
1. However concrete reality is sectioned, the result will always be a state of affairs that owes itself to something else.(Nothing will never explain its own existence) Everything will always point to something else for its existence. If there was something that could explain its own existence we would have to conclude that it was uncaused and therefore eternal. If there is something in this world that could explain its on existence it would have to be something that is non physical.
2. No matter where you find intelligibility and specified complexity you will always see intelligence behind it. You will never ever be convinced that a dictionary developed as a result of an explosion in a printing press. Why do I say that? Because of the nature of intelligibility of language. You can’t get a dictionary unless there is an alphabet.
Prior to all this coming to be there had to be the raw material from which this design was even possible. Babies... why is is possible that when man and a woman come together they can conceive a baby?
There is a preconfiguring to design making all this possible.
3. The course of human events, history, social and individual within the context of extra naturalism and of a plausible cosmic intellectualism it is plausible to talk of a mind. You cannot explain a physical universe alone because a physical quantity cannot explain its own existence. You cannot just say intelligibility happens in its own effect because there has to be the predisposing component factor to bring about intelligence.Therefore it is plausible to talk of a mind that thought to bring all things together in the universe we live in-The mind of God!!!
No other god has wounds….
I do not know the answer to the meaning of evil but I do know love. Fyodor Dostoevsky
-If the universe is in effect, the only cause that could explain it(existence of the universe) is an intelligent being. There must be an intelligent designer who is the cause of its existence.
-Moral argument: Moral realities/categories only exist if God exists.
Moral realities/categories do exist therefore God exist.
How can an amoral universe, through non moral processes end up with a moral framework? How do we think? Primordial slime cannot properly engender why it is wrong to torture babies. Especially because Evolution is based on the destruction of the weaker.
Does God Exist? YES!WHY?
1. However concrete reality is sectioned, the result will always be a state of affairs that owes itself to something else.(Nothing will never explain its own existence) Everything will always point to something else for its existence. If there was something that could explain its own existence we would have to conclude that it was uncaused and therefore eternal. If there is something in this world that could explain its on existence it would have to be something that is non physical.
2. No matter where you find intelligibility and specified complexity you will always see intelligence behind it. You will never ever be convinced that a dictionary developed as a result of an explosion in a printing press. Why do I say that? Because of the nature of intelligibility of language. You can’t get a dictionary unless there is an alphabet.
Prior to all this coming to be there had to be the raw material from which this design was even possible. Babies... why is is possible that when man and a woman come together they can conceive a baby?
There is a preconfiguring to design making all this possible.
3. The course of human events, history, social and individual within the context of extra naturalism and of a plausible cosmic intellectualism it is plausible to talk of a mind. You cannot explain a physical universe alone because a physical quantity cannot explain its own existence. You cannot just say intelligibility happens in its own effect because there has to be the predisposing component factor to bring about intelligence.Therefore it is plausible to talk of a mind that thought to bring all things together in the universe we live in-The mind of God!!!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Israel vs. Palestine.
Many a times I have watched television give a slanted view of the strife between Palestine and Israel. Whenever you hear of the Palestine-Israeli strife, it is usually one sided. The news will either show how much the Palestinians are suffering under the oppression of the Israelis who are taking their land by force or it will show you the terrorist activities of Hamas against Israel.Even when I hold conversations with my friends who are from he region, no one wants to admit that both sides have committed there fair share of destruction. The Palestinian side wants freedom and autonomy from Israel and is willing to fight to the bitter end for it. The Israeli side is not willing to let go, they refer to Hamas as terrorist and some have even claimed in regard to Hamas that an ant does not go to war with an elephant. This is in reference of course to both countries military forces.
An article in the New York Times titled "Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes From Both Sides" came like a breath of fresh air.According to the article, a UN report that came as a result of the investigation of the war in Gaza last winter has found that both Palestinian and Israeli militant groups are guilty of war crimes. Israel assaulted Gaza and terrorized a civilian population and as a result affected Gaza's economic capability. Israel was also responsible for the destruction of food production lines, water and sewerage facilities, using women and children as human shields and use of white phosphorous as a weapon of war.
Palestine on the other hand,fired rockets at Israeli civilians and killed and abused members of the rival Fatah political movement.
Now some may argue that Palestine's list is fairly smaller but considering the size of Palestine's military forces, that is hardly surprising. Who is to say what the extent of damage would be had Palestine had a greater military at its disposal?
Both parties of course argue that they acted in self defense. It is much more eye opening when you look at both sides of the story before you draw conclusions.
An article in the New York Times titled "Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes From Both Sides" came like a breath of fresh air.According to the article, a UN report that came as a result of the investigation of the war in Gaza last winter has found that both Palestinian and Israeli militant groups are guilty of war crimes. Israel assaulted Gaza and terrorized a civilian population and as a result affected Gaza's economic capability. Israel was also responsible for the destruction of food production lines, water and sewerage facilities, using women and children as human shields and use of white phosphorous as a weapon of war.
Palestine on the other hand,fired rockets at Israeli civilians and killed and abused members of the rival Fatah political movement.
Now some may argue that Palestine's list is fairly smaller but considering the size of Palestine's military forces, that is hardly surprising. Who is to say what the extent of damage would be had Palestine had a greater military at its disposal?
Both parties of course argue that they acted in self defense. It is much more eye opening when you look at both sides of the story before you draw conclusions.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bin Laden was within US grip.
I read two articles that were both on the same subject but they had a totally different approach to the matter. This went well with the objective of this blog which is to try and analyse how the media we are typically exposed to shapes our opinion on certain issues. Also, to demonstrate the importance of gathering information from different sources.
According to BBC news, a senate report was written by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff Osama bin Laden was allowed to walk unmolested into Pakistani territory because calls for reinforcement were rejected. It laid the blame on the Bush administration as a whole but was not very critical and accusing.It was sympathetic towards the then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said that he expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and also mentioned that he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.
Another article on guardian.co.uk made it very clear that it was former secretary of defense Donald Ramesfeld who let Bin Laden escape in 2001. Its interpretation of the report is that Ramsfeld had the chance to ensure that Bin Laden was either captured or killed but instead he let him slip away.According to the article, the report lays blame for the July 2005 Underground bombings in London on a failure to kill the al-Qaida leaders at Tora Bora.
It also went into detailing the evidence in the report that proves Bin Laden was indeed in Tora Bora, how many men he had, why he was there and how exactly the US failed to capture him. It was critical of Republicans and assumed that most Republicans would dismiss the report as partisan.
Reading from the two articles gives two very different perspectives of the Bush Administration and the report itself. It fascinates me how one report can be interpreted by two news outlets so that at the end of the day, you may not be able to tell whether or not it was the same report in the first place. The best and most responsible thing for a citizen who wants to be well informed is to find the report and read it, but in our busy and always on the move days, how many people would rather get the condensed version from whichever news source they trust the most?
According to BBC news, a senate report was written by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff Osama bin Laden was allowed to walk unmolested into Pakistani territory because calls for reinforcement were rejected. It laid the blame on the Bush administration as a whole but was not very critical and accusing.It was sympathetic towards the then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said that he expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and also mentioned that he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.
Another article on guardian.co.uk made it very clear that it was former secretary of defense Donald Ramesfeld who let Bin Laden escape in 2001. Its interpretation of the report is that Ramsfeld had the chance to ensure that Bin Laden was either captured or killed but instead he let him slip away.According to the article, the report lays blame for the July 2005 Underground bombings in London on a failure to kill the al-Qaida leaders at Tora Bora.
It also went into detailing the evidence in the report that proves Bin Laden was indeed in Tora Bora, how many men he had, why he was there and how exactly the US failed to capture him. It was critical of Republicans and assumed that most Republicans would dismiss the report as partisan.
Reading from the two articles gives two very different perspectives of the Bush Administration and the report itself. It fascinates me how one report can be interpreted by two news outlets so that at the end of the day, you may not be able to tell whether or not it was the same report in the first place. The best and most responsible thing for a citizen who wants to be well informed is to find the report and read it, but in our busy and always on the move days, how many people would rather get the condensed version from whichever news source they trust the most?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Obama's Bow.
I couldn't understand what the big deal was about Obama's bow to the Japanese emperor was when we were discussing it in class. So I decided to go and read some more on it.Of course I got an overwhelming amount of information. I was actually surprised at how much media attention that bow had received. I figured since it had made the weeks agenda and so prominently, it must be a big deal and it really was!One article by The Los Angeles Times online incoorperated this video that compared a number of bows to Obama's with the objective of showing how drastic Obama's bow was and how embarrassing this was for America.
Correlation is NOT causation.
A recent article in the BBC blatantly stated that climate change is a cause of the conflict in Africa. In fact, the title of the article is CLIMATE CHANGE IS "A MAJOR CAUSE OF CONFLICT" IN AFRICA And it gets better!Right under a pitiful picture of an old woman with tears in her eyes, was the subheading: Climate has been cited as a factor behind civil war in Sudan. As my eyes scanned through it all I could hear in the back of my head was professor Bhasin's voice going over and over again, emphasizing "correlation is not causation"
It is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the truth in a world wide news channel. I can think of quite a number of cases that would discredit climate change as a cause of conflict in Africa. Kenya, which boarders Sudan to the south has seen some fair share of conflict. North Eastern province is the driest region of the country. The Rift Valley is one of the most fertile regions. The Rift Valley has experienced some of the worst tribal clashes leading to civil strife.The North East, according to BBC should be experiencing conflict but it has seen little to no civil strife.
Northern Uganda has experienced one of the longest running wars in Africa. Climate has nothing to do with it. South Africa, one of Africa's most developed, experienced a wave of anti-immigrant violence.It had nothing to do with climate. Zimbabwe has been experiencing post election strife. I don't know about you but I would say the causal arrow in this case is not pointing in the same direction across all the countries that are subject to this study.
Food scarcity is a valid argument because the reason most wars occur is over struggle for resources. But, the poor have always had a food shortage even in times when the economy was blossoming and the rain was abundant. Much like the argument made in the study that showed in countries where wine consumption was high, divorce rates were low. It is not wine consumption that causes low divorce rates but these two factors are correlated. The real reason behind the low divorce rates is Catholicism- a religion that prohibits divorce but doesn't have any restrictions concerning wine consumption. Similarly it is not climate change that causes civil strife in Africa. Climate change, especially low rainfall, leads to low crop production and low agricultural output. This in turn leads to high food prices that the poor population cannot afford. This in turn leads to other things like a desire for wealth, a desire for land resources where they can grow crops to sustain themselves and the cycle continues to grow.
The problem of civil strife in Africa is multifaceted but I do not believe that climate change is a major contributor. The one factor that contributed the most to the civil strife in Africa is colonialism and interference by foreign powers. Rwanda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Somalia are good examples of countries who's wars have been fueled and even supported by foreign powers such as France, UK and even the United States.But these are the facts I will never read about in the news. What a great watchdog we have!
It is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the truth in a world wide news channel. I can think of quite a number of cases that would discredit climate change as a cause of conflict in Africa. Kenya, which boarders Sudan to the south has seen some fair share of conflict. North Eastern province is the driest region of the country. The Rift Valley is one of the most fertile regions. The Rift Valley has experienced some of the worst tribal clashes leading to civil strife.The North East, according to BBC should be experiencing conflict but it has seen little to no civil strife.
Northern Uganda has experienced one of the longest running wars in Africa. Climate has nothing to do with it. South Africa, one of Africa's most developed, experienced a wave of anti-immigrant violence.It had nothing to do with climate. Zimbabwe has been experiencing post election strife. I don't know about you but I would say the causal arrow in this case is not pointing in the same direction across all the countries that are subject to this study.
Food scarcity is a valid argument because the reason most wars occur is over struggle for resources. But, the poor have always had a food shortage even in times when the economy was blossoming and the rain was abundant. Much like the argument made in the study that showed in countries where wine consumption was high, divorce rates were low. It is not wine consumption that causes low divorce rates but these two factors are correlated. The real reason behind the low divorce rates is Catholicism- a religion that prohibits divorce but doesn't have any restrictions concerning wine consumption. Similarly it is not climate change that causes civil strife in Africa. Climate change, especially low rainfall, leads to low crop production and low agricultural output. This in turn leads to high food prices that the poor population cannot afford. This in turn leads to other things like a desire for wealth, a desire for land resources where they can grow crops to sustain themselves and the cycle continues to grow.
The problem of civil strife in Africa is multifaceted but I do not believe that climate change is a major contributor. The one factor that contributed the most to the civil strife in Africa is colonialism and interference by foreign powers. Rwanda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Somalia are good examples of countries who's wars have been fueled and even supported by foreign powers such as France, UK and even the United States.But these are the facts I will never read about in the news. What a great watchdog we have!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)