In discussing the gospel, I insist on God's perspective. The reason many fear that the message of grace may lead to promulgation of sin is that they see the gospel from man's point of view. Yes, the flesh is want to give in to sin, and in a society removed of law and the threat of punishment, it can only expect rising crime rate and even anarchy. However, once believing in Christ as our savior, we no longer belong to the flesh but the spirit. Though even as one with the spirit of Christ, a believer still cannot break the bondage of sin by obedience to law, but only by the righteousness redeemed in grace can we be blameless and intimate with God. This is the gospel view of God.
God has such faith -- to first grant us total clemency (grace), and man shall repent (reject the flesh) to follow Him. Then if even in our flesh, by grace we believe in His forgiveness, repent and receive His righteousness, are we to still worry about the temptation of flesh in grace? God believes we won't give in, but do we? The church constantly exhorts us to believe. But why? If we need to be often reminded, then the thing to believe in is by reason hard to believe in the first place. And what is it we are to believe? Is it obedience? Is it self-examination so as not to sin? Do these require great faith? I think not. Then what requires strong faith if not our obedience and holiness? It is that we are truly forgiven for all time, and by such righteousness of forgiveness in grace we not only will we not indulge in sin, we will not desire to sin.
This is the Gospel Truth! We all agree that God does not lie. His will is the truth, and what He says has no regret. His faithfulness is the foundation of our rest.
Then what is a lie from God's point of view? It is something expressed that does not fully comply with His word and will. This is rightfully the highest standard in God. Man can accept misunderstanding and mistakes, but to God even the smallest deviation is a lie. To man, falsehood with intention becomes a lie, but even the unintended is a lie in God's eyes. I truly hope that by the "lies" mentioned in these youtube videos we are not so sensitive as to conclude that the purpose is to accuse anyone, man or church. And that we are careful not to be so confident (especially me!) in telling the truth of God, think what we say IS the truth. The Biblical advise for "self examination" is not to dig up every sin in our hearts, but to be vigilant of the message we receive and accept, that they are as close to the truth as possible. If so we will find that, what we often thought to make sense become lies when measured against God's standard.
Let us not be careless in the truth, and never to compromise. Because only in understanding the truth can we truly be free. But what is the truth? Where is it? The Bible tells the story of truth, the Old Testament laid the foundation for truth, the New Testament explains the truth, and the gospel is the message of truth. But none of it is the truth, but only Jesus Christ Himself. It is not His teachings, but His very person. Truth is a life, the fountainhead of life. Truth is love, the heart of Christ.
What says the heart of Christ to us? He says, "I love you, I have already forgiven you completely. I washed you clean with my blood, and will never rebuke you. I believe, living in me, you will love me, follow me, depend on me. I will wait for you, and will never leave you." Amen
James
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
what is a lie 2
A lie can be mostly truths.
A lie can be truth taken out of context.
A lie can be something that once was true but not anymore.
A lie can be truth replacing other truth.
A lie can be truth untold.
A lie can be mixing of truth to make false.
A lie can be mixing false to make truth.
A lie can be truth elevated in importance.
A lie can be truth reduced in importance.
A lie can be truth misunderstood.
A lie can be truth unaccepted.
A lie can be truth omitted partly or entirely.
A lie can be a matter of unbelief.
A lie can be a matter of not understanding.
A lie can be a matter of forgetting.
A lie can be more logical than truth.
A lie can be more real than truth.
A lie can be more immediately beneficial than truth.
A lie can be more immediately relevant than truth.
A lie often sounds better than truth.
A lie is often what we prefer than truth.
A lie can be told with full sincerity.
A lie can be truth taken out of context.
A lie can be something that once was true but not anymore.
A lie can be truth replacing other truth.
A lie can be truth untold.
A lie can be mixing of truth to make false.
A lie can be mixing false to make truth.
A lie can be truth elevated in importance.
A lie can be truth reduced in importance.
A lie can be truth misunderstood.
A lie can be truth unaccepted.
A lie can be truth omitted partly or entirely.
A lie can be a matter of unbelief.
A lie can be a matter of not understanding.
A lie can be a matter of forgetting.
A lie can be more logical than truth.
A lie can be more real than truth.
A lie can be more immediately beneficial than truth.
A lie can be more immediately relevant than truth.
A lie often sounds better than truth.
A lie is often what we prefer than truth.
A lie can be told with full sincerity.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Jack, and the love of God
Today we said goodbye to our dog, Jack. He had been with us for twelve loving years, just being himself...the honesty, the loyalty, and just his plain silliness colored our lives with so much joy and laughter; and he was such a good companion growing up along with the kids. From a tiny puppy of weeks this was the only home he ever knew, a family who loved him back. A fully grown male Labrador Retriever weighing more than ninety pounds is more than a handful, but he was a beautiful pale golden color with big, ebony eyes that beg to be petted and hugged. His gentle nature and loving disposition were matched only by a voracious appetite and endless drooling and shedding! But to all he was a great pet and a trusted friend.
Over two years ago Jack was diagnosed with diabetes that needed special care and specific diet/medication. Charlene diligently cooked his food with healthy ingredients, gave him the required insulin shots twice daily, and faithfully walked him to get the necessary exercise. The doctor said that most likely he would have gone blind within six months from discovery, but even until his last day Jack was able to see. It was a deep kind of love that kept him, both in the routine but even more so in the unseen bond. Jack also suffered from arthritic conditions and nerve impairment that affected his mobility; and when his legs pretty much gave out, and could only walk with a harness being held up by one, then turning to two persons, it was only a matter of time before we had to say goodbye. One can only imagine how difficult it is to care for a 90 pound dog that can't stand, yet it was love that sustained the effort. In the end it wasn't the trouble taking care of him that led to a decision to let go, but to keep from suffering by the rapidly declining health.
Parting is such sweet sorrow, the pain made even sharper by the love in one's heart. Much tear was shed not wanting to let go, and continues to flow with each reminder of him. I have already had to say goodbye to my father and little sister, and know first hand the knife that cuts so deep; but it was the first time for Charlene and the kids losing someone they love dearly. And such an irony in loving -- greater the love, greater the pain. The experience is so wrenching that, if not for faith in God to somehow make sense of it all, the heart is want to never love again for the suffering.
All this I said is not just about a dog, but even more so to think about God and how the love we share connects to the love that is He. Does love suffer? It is an unequivocal "YES!" But love is also worthwhile and restores -- only in and by the source and love Himself. God lives one moment and every moment for all eternity; he suffers with and for us, experiencing each pain in His heart and keeps it forever in His love. And this love restores us, not in fading memory nor healing scar, but literal restoration of all that we have lost in wiping away every last tear upon His coming. So great is this love that He takes all of our pain upon His body and soul, and suffers them forever in exchanging for our everlasting joy. This is a love unimaginable.
Ours is already such reluctance to part from a loved one, how much more a God who loves all in infinite depth not wanting to depart from even one! Many are blinded by justice to God's love, believing God judges man like so much sorting through beans, picking out the good ones and discarding the less than perfect. Even for man that, at the moment of death all trespass is forgiven in making memories of him sweeter, how can a God who had already forgiven all keep a grudge against His child's imperfection? In our deep mourning is seen the true heart of God, that He is not vengeful against the lost but merciful, and the blood that flowed once on the cross has not dried up, but continues to wash clean the memory of sins against Him -- all to bring back that most precious of commodities, His sons and daughters, saying, "You are forgiven."
No, do not elevate justice above love, for love will not allow justice to get in the way of salvation, the clearest evidence of which is seen on the cross where nails drove through flesh. And neither does God's holiness need protection from sin by cold justice, for He does not reside in two tablets of stone on Sinai, but in a living, breathing and beating heart of Zion. God does not need man to guard Him from sin by the condemnation of other men. To many believers justice guards God's holiness like one who shy from becoming dirty for the love of cleanliness. Yet such love of hospital sanitation is empty of emotion like a polished silver cup emptied of wine. No, holiness in and of itself deprives of truth and meaning, but is only fulfilled embracing the one He loves even in filth.
I recently heard the account of a sister who discovered vomit filled to the brim in two church bathroom sinks. With her natural love of cleanliness and aversion to such thing she couldn't bring herself to clean out the mess. It is certainly understandable, and there is no justification for criticism of her perceived "failure" to perform what she thought was a Christian duty. For in all situations where we may be measured for service or absence, obedience or sin, sacrifice or escape, the spotlight is not on us but on Christ. Our failure is not about ourselves, but in it do not fail to see Christ, who willingly gives and does not fail, may He be glorified.
So often the preaching paints God in the same manner as this dear sister in that He avoids sin like the plaque, and can't stand to be touched by a sinner -- let alone embracing him. But is that the gospel account of Jesus Christ? To me, God is the holier for going against his holy nature and the restraint of justice to not only embrace His sinful and sin-filled children, He wades waist-deep in filth to save each and cleans one child at a time with His holy spirit, and counts him righteous by His blood. God does not demand we first clean ourselves of sin before coming to Him and to remain with Him. Yet, today's church is filled with such primary teaching of personal sanctification as not to sully the pristine temple of God. If so, then go back to the Old Testament, for that is not the God who willingly dies on the cross and freely spills His blood.
Like any man who loves and mourns the loss of love, more so our God that loves and mourns for one not home with Him. His justice is to protect us, not to reject us. And the performance of salvation is His, not ours, that whosoever believes not in themselves to overcome the sin not of their own cause, but in their resignation from pride of good work, may turn to God in complete faith and appeal to grace. Like our love for Jack, His love for us is from beginning to end, and how we are the joy in His eyes even in mischief. For in Him the end is just the beginning, and by grace a death is the start of new life. His humanity cries with us, His divinity dries our eyes. His tear is real weeping over our death, but also His command true in calling the asleep to "come forth!"
Yes, He even calls for Jack! Amen
James
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Free will and Christian Universalism / Hell is a state of lonely separation from God
Hi Exxx,
Haven't forgotten about our conversation. But I assure you that the justification for universal reconciliation is more than just wishful thinking, discarding of God's justice or making void the gift of free will.
I found one interesting observation made about your personal difficulty with the lake of fire. So you don't think it is a literal place of burning as many good Arminians believe. Instead you think it is a symbolic interpretation of eternal separation from God. From this I believe there may still be a closet Universalist in you! Except you just can't get over the problem of free will. But curiously, if it is separation from God, shouldn't hell be freezing cold instead of blazing hot? For God is a burning fire that not only nurtures but also refines. If hell is where God doesn't exist (is that even possible?) then neither shall it be eternally burning.
I will get to free will later, but may I first ask: removing your understanding of the Scripture, How is your most natural initial reaction to a assumed confirmation that ultimately all will be saved -- does it make you love God more in such assurance, or is it upsetting and makes you lose faith in Him for abandoning justice? I believe an answer to this reveals one's core belief and true intent.
Regarding free will, I am sure you agree that it is one of God's gifts for man out of His virtue. But it is not the only virtue from His heart accorded man. First and foremost there is love, and all other gifts are from love and cannot contradict love. There must be a purpose to, and higher purpose for God's gift of free will, which means it must serve a purpose for the good of man if it was given out of love.
But we seem to think it as separate from a purpose of love but more of a test of sincerity and even just a game to play to determine winners and losers. And not only does it serve no constructive purpose to the plan of salvation, it may even be an obstacle to God's will to bring back all of His loved ones. Viewed this way it seems the most logical explanation of God and free will is like a store vender wanting us to buy his goods but we are free to buy or not buy, take it or leave it. Whatever the choice it really doesn't matter so much as to break the heart of God, and the entire exercise is simply a process elimination to Him.
However, God's plan is not merely a choice of business transaction. The free will given man is to allow him opportunity to learn of God's heart and to trust in Him for all man's needs. It is limited free will that operates within the will of love, just like as parents we also give our children freedom in our relationship not to worry about punishment beyond loving correction, but will not allow them to suffer the consequences of action outside our protection (such as a toddler running out in the street). For when freedom is given to that extend then it is not an act of love but mere tolerance of indifference. Yet within the protection of love there is still freewill to be who we are -- and to hurt Him who loves us. Yet love forgives all our transgressions from lack the of faith and knowledge.
And such unlimited (and purposeless) free will contradicts the love of God. Many will say that in saving all it contradicts with God's justice. And that is where all the logical dead ends evolve from -- the incorrect relationship between God's love and His justice. God is love. Nothing else. Justice, mercy and even free will are all manifestations of love and only to serve love. Justice is not equal to love, for without love justice is meaningless and becomes only as a control mechanism. But if we believe that God is above all else -- love, then we can accept and understand the purpose of free will to draw ourselves closer to Him, and may even for a time stray away. There can be allowed seeming contradiction for now in our growth, but love wins in the end that will not compromise nor be compromised by free will. And the meaningful exercise of free will is in seeing God's heart, and understanding His sacrifice that we choose from loving Him to return to Him who loves us first.
Some more food for thought: There is no free will in unbelief, neither does it exist without the possibility of doubt. Think about it. Until next time...
Answer to "Aren't the sinners who do not fear God or believe in Him deserving the justice of hell?"
For this I just want to remind that many a people rejecting God are even better in character and charity than an average Christian. It is often not the evil in man's heart that hardens but the goodness he takes pride in. And why worry about God's justice to turn away from people who don't yet know Him? Be satisfied that His justice was paid for on the cross so that ALL may come to Him. To think certain people not deserving of salvation because of sin or unbelief is still having judgment in our hearts. See sin as separate from the sinner as God see us in grace, and our hearts will also open to salvation for all.
Do not be deceived by the traditional teaching of hell that was devised out of ignorance or malice to control faith and force confessions. But we all know (and certainly God knows) that true repentance cannot come from force nor threat. It can only be the kindness, mercy and forgiveness all in love that melts the heart of each one not yet believing. And that love is also the consuming fire that purifies the tare from the wheat in the Lake of Fire, which is not forever but until the end of that age when each soul turns towards God from His tender correction (though not pleasant). All have already been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but sin is not just covered up, it is completely destroyed from man and even angels (Col 1: 15-20) in full reconciliation.
Some people may be disappointed that there is no hell for unbelievers to burn forever in, but when one's heart is filled with love and forgiveness, salvation for all is the only outcome he desires. How much more our all-loving God? Please know that God's justice is not ignored in this but its demand fully paid for by the sacrifice of Christ; for even justice is not above love, and true love will always be just.
Do not be deceived by the traditional teaching of hell that was devised out of ignorance or malice to control faith and force confessions. But we all know (and certainly God knows) that true repentance cannot come from force nor threat. It can only be the kindness, mercy and forgiveness all in love that melts the heart of each one not yet believing. And that love is also the consuming fire that purifies the tare from the wheat in the Lake of Fire, which is not forever but until the end of that age when each soul turns towards God from His tender correction (though not pleasant). All have already been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but sin is not just covered up, it is completely destroyed from man and even angels (Col 1: 15-20) in full reconciliation.
Some people may be disappointed that there is no hell for unbelievers to burn forever in, but when one's heart is filled with love and forgiveness, salvation for all is the only outcome he desires. How much more our all-loving God? Please know that God's justice is not ignored in this but its demand fully paid for by the sacrifice of Christ; for even justice is not above love, and true love will always be just.
Answer to "Isn't it the purpose of the holy spirit to remind us of our sins?"
Let us see ourselves as God sees us -- sinless and righteous. If we continue to dwell on the "sins inside us" we remain in the world and under the bondage of guilt and shame. To think we have to deal with the problem of sin is not having faith in our victory through the gift of grace. Great faith is in believing we are already made holy and righteous in Christ and not trying to live up to His holiness and righteousness. And in that faith we are empowered to live out the true obedient life that is obedience to the holy spirit. Obedience in grace is not to a set of commandments but to the spirit. Sincerely as one may be, thinking it is our part to make the effort is trying to justify grace, which voids it and makes it powerless to help us bring about the change we want in the first place. In our effort to obey we go back to the law.
A Christian is not to be reminded by the holy spirit of our sin and trying to do better.we don't need the gospel for that. The law does a great job of convicting us of sin all by itself. The holy spirit only convicts us of our righteousness in Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation in grace. And grace is not to convict us of sin but to take it away. We must filter all commandments through grace once Christ died and was resurrected. The holy spirit can't contradict Himself by convicting us of both sin and righteousness. We have to believe one or the other. And if we believe He constantly reminds us of sin then we are hopeless for then He is in agreement with the devil who never tells us how good we are in Christ! No, a believer does not need more reminders on how sinful he/she is, but the entire church is impoverished of faith in how holy and righteous she is in the sight of God!
A Christian is not to be reminded by the holy spirit of our sin and trying to do better.we don't need the gospel for that. The law does a great job of convicting us of sin all by itself. The holy spirit only convicts us of our righteousness in Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation in grace. And grace is not to convict us of sin but to take it away. We must filter all commandments through grace once Christ died and was resurrected. The holy spirit can't contradict Himself by convicting us of both sin and righteousness. We have to believe one or the other. And if we believe He constantly reminds us of sin then we are hopeless for then He is in agreement with the devil who never tells us how good we are in Christ! No, a believer does not need more reminders on how sinful he/she is, but the entire church is impoverished of faith in how holy and righteous she is in the sight of God!
"Victory in the Lord" in the new covenant is literally letting the holy spirit do all the work, and we just trust Him to do it in us. That is why faith in grace is so important because we are not called to do anything on our own anymore. In the Old Testament we earn (try to) righteousness by our good works, but in the New Testament we receive through faith the righteousness Christ gave us by grace to live out the holy life. If that is the case then it is not about our trying and doing anymore but trusting and hearing the gospel, for faith comes from hearing only the word of Christ.
We don't do good by the motivation of being a testimony for Him, but the testimony naturally witnessed by the good results of only listening to the message of grace (words of Christ). And it is not our obedience in behavior that testifies to His resurrection and salvation, but the obedience of faith we hold on to no matter the accusation of the world, the church, other believers -- and even our own conscience -- that we have been made, and always will be, holy and righteous. For it is not only the right behaviors seen, but the joy in the righteous behaviors felt that moves hearts and minds, and testifies for Christ. And no amount of effort to do right can earn us the true joy of Christ but only resting in Him and His grace.
Under grace -- and all grace -- we serve out of the overflowing joy in our hearts, and by such no need to be reminded to serve but only listen,... listening to the heart of God.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Can one go too far with grace?
"One must be careful preaching grace so that it may not go too far in becoming an excuse to sin!"
One can go too far with grace? Wrong. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. If one can go too far with grace, one can also go too far with Jesus and truth, for these are one and the same. (John 1:17)
Grace is the power over sin, and if one remains in the acceptance of sin one is out of (and the understanding of) grace. To promote grace is not to overlook sin nor in not wanting to be holy, but to uphold the highest holiness of God by recognizing it as not just having a high standard we need to achieve -- but an impossible one. Only in such realization can one repent fully from self-effort and embrace God's grace as his only path to salvation.
Many Christians fear grace because it seems to condone sinful behavior, but that is simply not true. Grace forgives the sinner but does not tolerate sin. That is why when a sinner repents, his faith allows grace to overpower sin through the forgiveness and the imputed righteousness of Christ. With Christ living in a believer one is no longer in bondage to sin, but triumphs over it by the righteous standing in Christ. When we are full of grace sin loses its grip over us.
A church ought to be compassionate to a believer in sin, but if there is no repentance and a will to be free from the bondage of sin, he is still not a true believer of Christ and certainly has not received the grace revelation. Such sinful influence rightfully should not be allowed to fester in a church. This is not contrary to grace for the spiritual lives of other members are at stake from a tolerance of sin in public. However, given such mandate we are not to dig and demand to know the private lives of each believer, for all have secret sins, but by the grace of God he seeks the power to overcome. Even in knowing one should not first indict and withhold but preach more on grace that is the power to overcome.
Grace is the strongest evidence how seriously God views sin, so much so that He has to give up His own life to wash clean of us, and the willingness to do so also demonstrates how great His love is for us. It doesn't take any effort to demand obedience from law, but grace took a sacrifice and shedding of God's blood. Which is more precious to a believer for whom this gift is given at such a great price - law or grace? Yet so many dearly uphold law as the one true holy, only to view the glorification and acceptance of grace as evidence of spiritual laziness and escaping the responsibility of Christian living. No! I am not ashamed of grace, which is the essence of the new covenant gospel (Romans 1:16), for it is the very truth and person of Jesus Christ in whom all is made righteous and none shall remain in bondage of sin. But to preach personal sanctification as a requirement is law, which keeps the real power that is grace to overcome sin, and is the single biggest reason a believer remains in bondage of sin, shame and condemnation, and allows not the full experience of freedom only possible in the life-changing forgiveness of grace.
Law only condemns, it does not forgive; law only demands, it does not empower. And neither does it work in partnership with grace, for grace alone is the truth and the way that not only empowers but also demands of itself to overcome sin by the invitation of faith in a believer. For a demand can only be satisfied by an equal power to comply, and what God demands of man can only be met by God's demand of Himself living in man. Confidence in man to satisfy the demand of God through his own obedience is a charade of foolish pride; and if placing faith in grace is THE ONE AND ONLY POWER we need, then stop the false theatrics of preaching personal holiness by man's own work. Our only demand is trusting and living out the gospel message encapsulated in"righteousness by faith"! Amen
James
One can go too far with grace? Wrong. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. If one can go too far with grace, one can also go too far with Jesus and truth, for these are one and the same. (John 1:17)
Grace is the power over sin, and if one remains in the acceptance of sin one is out of (and the understanding of) grace. To promote grace is not to overlook sin nor in not wanting to be holy, but to uphold the highest holiness of God by recognizing it as not just having a high standard we need to achieve -- but an impossible one. Only in such realization can one repent fully from self-effort and embrace God's grace as his only path to salvation.
Many Christians fear grace because it seems to condone sinful behavior, but that is simply not true. Grace forgives the sinner but does not tolerate sin. That is why when a sinner repents, his faith allows grace to overpower sin through the forgiveness and the imputed righteousness of Christ. With Christ living in a believer one is no longer in bondage to sin, but triumphs over it by the righteous standing in Christ. When we are full of grace sin loses its grip over us.
A church ought to be compassionate to a believer in sin, but if there is no repentance and a will to be free from the bondage of sin, he is still not a true believer of Christ and certainly has not received the grace revelation. Such sinful influence rightfully should not be allowed to fester in a church. This is not contrary to grace for the spiritual lives of other members are at stake from a tolerance of sin in public. However, given such mandate we are not to dig and demand to know the private lives of each believer, for all have secret sins, but by the grace of God he seeks the power to overcome. Even in knowing one should not first indict and withhold but preach more on grace that is the power to overcome.
Grace is the strongest evidence how seriously God views sin, so much so that He has to give up His own life to wash clean of us, and the willingness to do so also demonstrates how great His love is for us. It doesn't take any effort to demand obedience from law, but grace took a sacrifice and shedding of God's blood. Which is more precious to a believer for whom this gift is given at such a great price - law or grace? Yet so many dearly uphold law as the one true holy, only to view the glorification and acceptance of grace as evidence of spiritual laziness and escaping the responsibility of Christian living. No! I am not ashamed of grace, which is the essence of the new covenant gospel (Romans 1:16), for it is the very truth and person of Jesus Christ in whom all is made righteous and none shall remain in bondage of sin. But to preach personal sanctification as a requirement is law, which keeps the real power that is grace to overcome sin, and is the single biggest reason a believer remains in bondage of sin, shame and condemnation, and allows not the full experience of freedom only possible in the life-changing forgiveness of grace.
Law only condemns, it does not forgive; law only demands, it does not empower. And neither does it work in partnership with grace, for grace alone is the truth and the way that not only empowers but also demands of itself to overcome sin by the invitation of faith in a believer. For a demand can only be satisfied by an equal power to comply, and what God demands of man can only be met by God's demand of Himself living in man. Confidence in man to satisfy the demand of God through his own obedience is a charade of foolish pride; and if placing faith in grace is THE ONE AND ONLY POWER we need, then stop the false theatrics of preaching personal holiness by man's own work. Our only demand is trusting and living out the gospel message encapsulated in"righteousness by faith"! Amen
James
What we came to this world for
We came to this world to grow and come to know Him. In this world are signs of what is possible in God, and how it is to love and be loved. But also we learn the despair of being alone, and the depth of depravity when love is absent in the heart. We came to find ourselves but also to let go of ourselves in such discovery, by which we miss God and find Him. To be born and to die, but then reborn and never die. We are like flowers that blossom then wither, but in the dying we give life. This is the spirit of Christ forever living in us. We are sons of man who must die in Christ to become sons of God.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Farewell, Uncle MIng
6/07/07
1973…
It was more than 30 years ago. So much time, so many memories between then
and this moment. Yet, it seems only a translucent veil that divides us from
those dusty yesterdays. And now, standing here, I realize the significance
of the fateful times in the 70s…something I imagine only an over-the-hill
47-year-old is want to ponder.
That year, our family of 6 immigrated to the land of freedom and
opportunity. In this second life, many doors were opened by good people that
enabled us to carry out a rewarding life in America. But the very first one
was held by Uncle Ming, who welcomed us into his home with open arms.
Like an impressionable baby chick, the times spent in Landover, Maryland
left an indelible mark on me. I reminisced even then that Uncle Ming was
friendly, funny…and something of a macho dude! See, years before he came to
the States, and on some visits to our home in Taiwan, he would horse around
with us. I recall Uncle Ming rolling up the sleeves to reveal and flex his
bulging biceps! I was a scrawny little kid then, and was completely in awe!
In ’73 the same friendly, funny Uncle greeted us at the airport just up the
road from here. I was 12 then, and was most impressed by his shiny gold
Dodge Dart! He then bought a brand new cream-colored Buick Century, and
drove us kids around town, stoking my life long love affair with cars -- and
especially, Buicks!
But there were no more playful muscle shows…maybe we just grew older; I
didn’t know then as a youngster that Uncle Ming was already battling a new
enemy that required a different kind of strength and courage. He refused to
give in to the debilitating and elusive foe, but continued pursuing his
profession and passion, and finding a special partner in life every bit his
equal – and everything he needed. Together Aunt Su and Uncle Ming created a
family, and raised three wonderful and accomplished children.
Looking back through a renewed focus, I see so much to admire about this
special man, and so many life lessons to learn from him. It is only a soul
forged in the crucible of adversity that burns hot enough, and bright
enough, to radiate warmth and light for others, and itself transformed…no
mere flesh and blood, but invisible strands of steel that rushes through his
veins!
While losing certain physical freedom, Uncle Ming willed himself into a
giant oak tree that towered over the field, a landmark for wayward souls,
shelter for tired spirits and nourishment for those who hunger for wisdom.
He is at once the fragile, ordinary human being, and the powerful embodiment
of an alien sun! Behind the gentle, endearing frame stood a man who
commanded respect.
Endlessly inventive, and incurably inquisitive, Uncle Ming is famous for
his” WSOTD,” or “Wise Saying of the Day,” dispensing observations and
anecdotes about life, art, philosophy, religion and politics that profoundly
influenced and instilled in us new perspectives on being a more-aware and
more-decent person.
Alas, the epic battle may have claimed the warrior’s body, but the man –
spirit indefatigable – lives on, triumphant and freed finally from forty
years of chains that bound. He was loved by all, but no one had the lock or
key to this last gateway. After a lifetime of opening doors for others, this
one he earned the right to unbolt, and walked through it proudly into the
golden light, no doubt already exploring the grandeur of the heavenly
domain, and sizing up his place in the company of deserving men, and the
eternal God he had come to terms with.
Dear Aunt Su, Elliott, Susan and Emily, the missing never ceases, but the
pain does subside. In breaking this earthly bondage he is made whole once
more. And please know that he calls with each stirring of the heart and
welling of tears, and is as close as the blues, and oranges, on a blossoming
bird of paradise…
Thank you, Uncle Ming. I am all grown up now, but the kid in me will always
treasure the spring in 1973, and the little things you did that changed our
lives for the better – a sentiment, I am certain, many here and in far
reaches share that, although different in details and circumstance, remains
constant in a lovable man named Hsu Ming-Yen.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
absolute vs. nihilism
Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:10 pm
I remember once Sxxx asked if I know of any absolutes, which illustrates Jxxx’s observation about the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals – that he would ask this question, and I was asked of this question.
Extremism as we understand it is to be condemned, but striving to the extreme is not in of itself evil. God (as most people define it) is extremely good; and as one endeavors to that end it is in a sense similar to Jxx’s description as a yearning to return to the root (for a religious conservative); a secular liberal has similar longing to return to the basic human goodness they feel as intrinsic in each of us.
The defining of a concept is perfect and therefore extreme; the term “goodness” is the polar opposite of the term “evil.” In the spectrum of human values, these two represent the two extremes. The conventional application of those who fear extremism and advocate moderation on all issues tend to view the conceptual idea of moral values in the same way, which frequently lead to a fear of those who express desires to attain the firmament of goodness and, instead, rather settle in the realms of a centrist and the neo-ideal of neutrality. But by taking such a view on morality, one may find himself paradoxically favoring the “not so bad” and “pretty good” over high aspiration for goodness.
These are two distinct though related dynamics that deserve careful analysis. “Goodness” as a motive should be as distant away from evil as possible, and the recognition of goodness is by necessity a discriminatory act (which should not be equated in a pejorative sense). In contrast, the act of goodness should be broad and inclusive (and indeed without more than the self, a discussion of good and evil is useless and it is in the multitude that one needs to modulate, compromise and seek consensus lest chaos rules;) to the utilitarian mind, “goodness” is thusly defined in the passive that a community of likeness is “good” without need to measure against a universal standard. The desire to render all distinctions obsolete, and finding root of evil in the polarization of values engenders this desire and solution for a “single class” society, which at its culmination replaces the “extremes” it seeks to destroy.
It is also when an aggressive seeker of goodness who is not temperate in the act of “his goodness” that a degradation of the values upheld so highly occurs. If one values freedom as a high moral and that each individual has certain inalienable rights (as all true seekers of goodness should), then an intolerant application of his ideals risks a betrayal of its very values and good intent. At its worst, the consequences of the extreme application of a desire for goodness becomes the very extreme (evil) he tries to distant himself from in the conceptual.
It can be said then that, conceptually, conservatives define good and evil as directions from the center (extremist!), whereas liberals define it as distance (hence the often-heard label of “broken moral compass.”)
In the abstract world of concepts, the difference is merely rhetorical. But in the real world where battles against evil are a constant, those who distinguish good from evil in terms of character (behavior, i.e. tyrant, murderer and thief) see a different archenemy from ones who differentiate in terms of appearance (expression, i.e. devoutly religious, racist or anti-choice). That is why conservatives often view liberals as misguided impediment to the eradication of evil, but liberals mostly see conservatives as personification (or instigator of) evil. And the high ideal a conservative seeks is often called “hypocritical” (which I don’t think should be the top evil…I think level of atrocity should be the proper measure of that ) whereas the neutrality of liberals is perceived as “amoral.”
) whereas the neutrality of liberals is perceived as “amoral.”In conclusion, I would like to propose that a possible method of validating goodness is not by a search in the extreme, act in the extreme, nor search in the neutral, act in the neutral, but is best found in the search in the extreme, act in the neutral.
(The worst case of course is as in the dictator of Iraq who didn’t even bother to search but made up for it by acting in the very extreme.)
Presumption of life
Sun Feb 3, 2002 10:42 pm
I have been thinking long and hard about the issues we discussed recently. An unnatural thing to do that it is, one nevertheless can only arrive at strong and robust rationale for holding certain positions on important life issues by being open to critiques and a willilngness to amend in light of convincing argument. And it is so right that sometimes the best solution for a society is garnered through intelligent compromise -- especially so for a secular one where rights and wrongs are determined through a democratic process. One needs not avoid controversial and emotionally charged issues such as abortion as long as the focus is on consesnsus and common values instead of reactionary and --yes-- judgmental (in a pejorative sense).
So much of man's action is based on what is permitted. In WWII Poland, peaceful neighbors for decades turned on each other, killing, raping and parading through the streets with babies pierced on pitchforks. George Will told the story and offered the following answer to horrors such as this reenacted countless times: "because they could, because it was permitted." Man, when stripped of his moral shackles, will do dastardly deeds. This phenomenon is not always so clear-cut; lesser evil may be found in people of basically decent nature but tolerated to act indecently. The extent of man's good will is determined by the boundary he places on the sanctity of life. Starting with the self, it may expand to include family, friends, community and so on. Man's ability to love and cherish were no less when slave trading was accepted. What allowed them to do what we now consider to be obvious evil was a view that certain people were not equal, or are of lesser life forms.
With all that said, what had always puzzled me about the view on abortion as something to be advocated (mostly by the population-control crowd), protected or as an individual choice by otherwise loving and decent people may find the answer in how they view the sanctity of a human fetus. This is not an indictment on anyone who holds this point of view for it is true that none of us can truly determine when the right to life begins. However, the lack of a credible moral authority does not mean that we can stand neutral on something so imaginably important and with so much at stake -- the extinguishing of a human life -- if our action or non-action turns out to be wrong. The foundation of our justice system is based on the "presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of doubt." The tenet is born out of a fear for wrongful prosecution that may lead to irreversible damage on the innocent -- an argument often cited by opponents of capital punishment (supported by many Christians btw, Jon). If the decision to abort a baby/fetus turns out to be wrong, Joanie, the consequence is not only the mother's burden to bear, it is a sin of cosmic scope. Where we draw the line, Joe, is not only an emotional one for then one is just as valid as another up to a fully formed baby close to birth. No, it must be a morally determined guideline based on a presumption of life first and foremost, and intelligently supported by the best current scientific research to determine the point when a fetus most likely becomes a viable human entity. Anyone who can bear the thought of a baby/fetus being killed without feeling pain in his heart better be damn sure that what is being terminated is not even close to a human life -- and who among us can boldly claim that knowledge with absolute certainty? If we are to err, the only acceptable side is life. To fear being stigmatized as "intolerant" and permit irresponsible, un-tempered freedom may inadvertently allow misguided evil to foment.
Accordingly, the best approach to the problem that also takes into consideration the welfare of a mother-to-be is to resort to abortion as a last alternative in quantifiable circumstances of critical and special nature such as rape, incest and endangerment of mother's life, and limit the operation to as early a term as can reasonably be accepted by purposeful consensus.
Same conclusion, but hopefully not due to stubbornness but careful consideration of available reasoning. I try my best to avoid claiming a position first superficially, and then find reasons to defend it instead of additional support; at least in this issue, it is not a debating exercise. If I have been remiss or presented incorrect thesis, please be gentle with your enlightenment. ;-)
Goodwill not enough
Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:49 pm
The strong conviction you sense about my ideal is mostly applicable to my world view and how I perceive it ought to be (that is the easy part).
On a personal level, I retain all the awkwardness, hesitation and uncertainty in dealing with life itself -- as it should be if I were to remain real and human. When interacting personally, tolerance and compassion should
be prime consideration. I just find it hard to extrapolate into an effective legislative function. Until the quality of our nature elevates to relatively uniform ideals, the tie that bonds a society can only be based on the lowest
common self-interest.
Ironically, if once we all achieve that high level of altruism, the need for law for order shall naturally diminish. Anyone who accepts that we need rules of conduct in a society is also admitting to the fact that in the gathering of men goodwill alone is not enough.
The strong conviction you sense about my ideal is mostly applicable to my world view and how I perceive it ought to be (that is the easy part).
On a personal level, I retain all the awkwardness, hesitation and uncertainty in dealing with life itself -- as it should be if I were to remain real and human. When interacting personally, tolerance and compassion should
be prime consideration. I just find it hard to extrapolate into an effective legislative function. Until the quality of our nature elevates to relatively uniform ideals, the tie that bonds a society can only be based on the lowest
common self-interest.
Ironically, if once we all achieve that high level of altruism, the need for law for order shall naturally diminish. Anyone who accepts that we need rules of conduct in a society is also admitting to the fact that in the gathering of men goodwill alone is not enough.
Is life arbitrary?
Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:30 pm
I definitely agree that careful consideration is deserved for all parties
involved in an abortion decision. The woman's position is especially
profound since it does affect her in many more ways.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortion is done not for serious
medical, emotional or psychological reasons. A late term abortion done
mostly for reason of inconvenience should not be supported. after all, a
baby's right should not be deprived for being unborn; the violation of womb
where a nascent human being find safety and nurturance should be reserved
only for the gravest concerns. I hope your compassion also extends to the
little innocent ones.
Is life arbitrary? Is it precious when wanted but expendable when undesired?
If one mourns for a miscarriage, does it not admonish us to be even more
hesitant about pro-active termination? I find it disconcerting to advocate
killing babies for scant moral reason and preserving the life of murderers
in spite of high moral justification. This is as blunt as can be, and no
semantics can refine the brutal impact of such beliefs. Unless one arrives
at these decisions painfully and reluctantly, and pay extra concern, homage
and unforgetting to the true victims, these views are in reality
anti-compassionate.
I definitely agree that careful consideration is deserved for all parties
involved in an abortion decision. The woman's position is especially
profound since it does affect her in many more ways.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortion is done not for serious
medical, emotional or psychological reasons. A late term abortion done
mostly for reason of inconvenience should not be supported. after all, a
baby's right should not be deprived for being unborn; the violation of womb
where a nascent human being find safety and nurturance should be reserved
only for the gravest concerns. I hope your compassion also extends to the
little innocent ones.
Is life arbitrary? Is it precious when wanted but expendable when undesired?
If one mourns for a miscarriage, does it not admonish us to be even more
hesitant about pro-active termination? I find it disconcerting to advocate
killing babies for scant moral reason and preserving the life of murderers
in spite of high moral justification. This is as blunt as can be, and no
semantics can refine the brutal impact of such beliefs. Unless one arrives
at these decisions painfully and reluctantly, and pay extra concern, homage
and unforgetting to the true victims, these views are in reality
anti-compassionate.
Capital punishment
Wed Jan 30, 2002 9:47 am
Since we are on the subject of capital punishment, here are my thoughts:
First I want to acknowledge that no one can claim to be completely right
when discussing moral issues. But the position one takes (with conviction
and forethought) speaks for where his heart lies.
From a moral point of view, I take no issue with those who patently oppose
capital punishment -- even for the most heinous and deliberate torture and
taking of human lives -- if they felt it to be an agonizingly unsavory
position to uphold. If one feels that it is unjust to let murderers (and
only in cases where incontrovertible proof of guilt and malice can be
established) live while the victim(s) direct and indirect lay dead or
suffer, that the killer deserves to die but we simply do not have the
god-given right to take lives, then the argument for opposition is
understandable and acceptable. There are times when we are prohibited to act
on what is right, but the will of the heart is what we are measured by.
For those who uphold a murderer's right to live as an issue separating the
deed from the man, how then shall that person live his life? Do we need to
tend to his nutrition, health, comfort and entertainment? Why incarcerate
him at all, since punishment is an archaic and barbarous concept in this age
of enlightenment. It will not bring back the dead, and many pooh-pooh the
deterrence factor. With no moral outrage and cavalier dismissal of the
plight of the victim, to ardently support and defend the life of a murderer
is, it seems to me, ironic in its unintended mockery of the dead and the
lives that should have been preserved but was taken away.
It is noble to feel pity or compassion (moral, not personal) towards one who
committed acts of murder. There are those who await the possibility of
remorse or penitence. I would say that if is to be, then he would then take
his own life at the realization of the gravity of his deed. Compassion from
a moral perspective is understandable, but I find it hard to accept those
who would try to defend or befriend an unrepentant murderer. Where is the
outrage for the crime? Where is the contempt for evil? Where is the tear for
the victim?
There is no moral without justice. One may relegate justice to god, but to
not loudly judge in one's heart that a murder as wrong and deserving of
punishment allows evil to lurk and fester. If a society holds each life to
the highest of esteem, it must be demonstrated by the severity of punishment
it metes out when one is brutally diminished.
Since we are on the subject of capital punishment, here are my thoughts:
First I want to acknowledge that no one can claim to be completely right
when discussing moral issues. But the position one takes (with conviction
and forethought) speaks for where his heart lies.
From a moral point of view, I take no issue with those who patently oppose
capital punishment -- even for the most heinous and deliberate torture and
taking of human lives -- if they felt it to be an agonizingly unsavory
position to uphold. If one feels that it is unjust to let murderers (and
only in cases where incontrovertible proof of guilt and malice can be
established) live while the victim(s) direct and indirect lay dead or
suffer, that the killer deserves to die but we simply do not have the
god-given right to take lives, then the argument for opposition is
understandable and acceptable. There are times when we are prohibited to act
on what is right, but the will of the heart is what we are measured by.
For those who uphold a murderer's right to live as an issue separating the
deed from the man, how then shall that person live his life? Do we need to
tend to his nutrition, health, comfort and entertainment? Why incarcerate
him at all, since punishment is an archaic and barbarous concept in this age
of enlightenment. It will not bring back the dead, and many pooh-pooh the
deterrence factor. With no moral outrage and cavalier dismissal of the
plight of the victim, to ardently support and defend the life of a murderer
is, it seems to me, ironic in its unintended mockery of the dead and the
lives that should have been preserved but was taken away.
It is noble to feel pity or compassion (moral, not personal) towards one who
committed acts of murder. There are those who await the possibility of
remorse or penitence. I would say that if is to be, then he would then take
his own life at the realization of the gravity of his deed. Compassion from
a moral perspective is understandable, but I find it hard to accept those
who would try to defend or befriend an unrepentant murderer. Where is the
outrage for the crime? Where is the contempt for evil? Where is the tear for
the victim?
There is no moral without justice. One may relegate justice to god, but to
not loudly judge in one's heart that a murder as wrong and deserving of
punishment allows evil to lurk and fester. If a society holds each life to
the highest of esteem, it must be demonstrated by the severity of punishment
it metes out when one is brutally diminished.
Absolute childhood
Tue Jan 29, 2002 12:16 am
I guess childish begets evil and childlike begets good? Anything infantile
can be charming even without color of compassion (may be condescending if
not restrained) -- we can afford to be amused for the lack of imminent
threat...
I absolutely need to breath to live, and absolutely need to love to live
fully. One is universal; the other, personal, but equally real. In the moral
and philosophical realms, everything is relative and worthless until there
is a pact among multiples. Agreement creates an arbitrary but definable
absolute from which law and order may be implemented effectively. The spirit
of the laws that govern man's behaviors should be as clear as possible with
the understanding that an acceptable measure of personal freedom is offered
in return for protection shared in common.
Ruling by compassion and tolerance can only be effectively legislated by a
benevolent dictator (source of absolute). A democratic society is easily
clouded by these ideals with ambiguity and endless exceptions. The governing
body should be concerned only with truth (accepted absolute) and justice
(equal protection). The nature of compassion is for more benefit than fairly
deserved. Let that be in the hands of the micro-community and individuals,
not legislature.
When buzzwords such as "relative," "subjective," and "depending" are used,
it waters down an argument. Where there is no anchor point, there is no
direction. Even an arbitrary ground rule is important for two sides to be
able to understand one another and possibly come to an agreement through
logic.
Your unwillingness to judge others is commendable, but to be principled as I
know your are, one must hold certain values higher than others... and,
hopefully, more than just being intolerant of intolerance. ;-) Overly
tolerant borders on amoral, and one should be mindful of moral justice in
the serious consideration of difficult issues such as capital punishment
and abortion -- as well as the individual at hand.
I guess childish begets evil and childlike begets good? Anything infantile
can be charming even without color of compassion (may be condescending if
not restrained) -- we can afford to be amused for the lack of imminent
threat...
I absolutely need to breath to live, and absolutely need to love to live
fully. One is universal; the other, personal, but equally real. In the moral
and philosophical realms, everything is relative and worthless until there
is a pact among multiples. Agreement creates an arbitrary but definable
absolute from which law and order may be implemented effectively. The spirit
of the laws that govern man's behaviors should be as clear as possible with
the understanding that an acceptable measure of personal freedom is offered
in return for protection shared in common.
Ruling by compassion and tolerance can only be effectively legislated by a
benevolent dictator (source of absolute). A democratic society is easily
clouded by these ideals with ambiguity and endless exceptions. The governing
body should be concerned only with truth (accepted absolute) and justice
(equal protection). The nature of compassion is for more benefit than fairly
deserved. Let that be in the hands of the micro-community and individuals,
not legislature.
When buzzwords such as "relative," "subjective," and "depending" are used,
it waters down an argument. Where there is no anchor point, there is no
direction. Even an arbitrary ground rule is important for two sides to be
able to understand one another and possibly come to an agreement through
logic.
Your unwillingness to judge others is commendable, but to be principled as I
know your are, one must hold certain values higher than others... and,
hopefully, more than just being intolerant of intolerance. ;-) Overly
tolerant borders on amoral, and one should be mindful of moral justice in
the serious consideration of difficult issues such as capital punishment
and abortion -- as well as the individual at hand.
What is love?
Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:22 pm
Beautifull said, Joe! Indeed I often speak of love, but know very little of what it means and even less of what it takes...
...but to give completely one needs not know about but already is love.
Beautifull said, Joe! Indeed I often speak of love, but know very little of what it means and even less of what it takes...
...but to give completely one needs not know about but already is love.
Thank you for joining us to celebrate Kyle's life
Mon Jul 9, 2007 1:55 pm
Dear family:
As you know, the memorial service for Kyle took place yesterday. It was a
beautiful tribute on a beautiful Sunday, and filled with sadness and joy,
tears and smiles. Yet, today seems to be the more heart wrenching for me.
The adrenaline that sustained me, Joe, Alice and Mom the past two weeks as
we prepared through long nights for the special event is long vanished,
carried away by the white dove along with our last farewell to her. I am
left drained and alone, empty saved for the broken slide show of life with
Kyle playing in my head, and the panging in my heart...
Only the music of Eva Cassidy and Israel (Iz) Kamakawiwo'ole singing
"Somewhere over the Rainbow," as if only for me, salve for the dull ache
where out little angel left us. The two distinctively styled performances
accented the memorial. Unknown to me only weeks ago I have since learned
that they both died young as well; but the music lives on, now and forever
bringing tearful comfort and Kyle's laughter with each heartfelt note and
word.
"The Rose" was also sang by all at the service as it was a favorite of
Kyle's. She practiced hard and performed at a music class she took in
college. Nina Perez, Alice's close high school friend, and a classically
trained singer performed the beautiful "Pie Jesu" by Andrew Lloyd Webber --
another piece of kyle's favor found in the collection. Nina's voice soared
above the entire valley below as it stirred our hearts.
Kyle's resting place is nestled on the top of Rose Hills overlooking west
and the entire valley that, on a clear day, reaches all the way to the
Pacific Ocean. It is within a short walk from Dad's place, which can be seen
to the left with Skyrose Chapel as the magnificent backdrop. The service
took place in front of a gurgling fountain/waterfall. Colorful floral
arrangements with tropical accents lined the fountain, and a special
heart-shaped wreath made of red roses and carnation was place above her
niche wall framed by white canvas screens behind. (The occasional wind gust
wreaked havoc and blew them down several times, but was finally tamed with
the help of Henry, Jeremiah and Tammy and a generous helping of duct tape!)
Clear bowls of seashells and candles lined the steps leading up to Kyle's
niche.
After the never-perfect effort to set the scene as captivating and serene as
possible, the small gathering of 17 family and guests assembled in front of
the picture frame of a happy and smiling Kyle taken at Joe's wedding. I said
a few words of welcome, then invited Uncle Daniel up to open with a prayer.
I then recited Psalms 55: 6 & 8, "I said, "Oh, that I had the wings of a
dove! I would fly away and be at rest-," "I would hurry to my place of
shelter, far from the tempest and storm." Next I read an allegorical story
about Kyle: "A Rose and a Dove"
"The Rose" was then performed, followed by some words of remembrance from
Alice, Julie and Joe. Julie is one of Kyle's close friends from High School.
There wasn't a dry eye as each recount of life and experience with her was
filled with emotion and tenderness. among the free flow of tears a few
chuckles were elicited by humorous accounts of Kyle as she had a sunny
disposition among friends and family. Of course, there was also a darker
private side to her that I wish so much to have taken the time to know and
share; but such is the folly of human optimism that there is always more
time...
Preceding Aunt Su's lovely blessing was Nina's haunting rendition of "Pie
Jesu." Finally, Mom lead the procession from the fountain area up to Kyle's
niche, carrying the guardian angels; I followed with Kyle's urn, Joe with
her photo and Alice the heart-shaped white basket of the dove. Eva Cassidy's
melancholy "Somewhere over the rainbow" played softly. Charlene put white
dedication roses in a traditional basket held by little Camille, who passed
one to each family and guest. Finally, Alice recited "A Child of Mine," a
poem about how God lends us a child to keep and care for, but may call her
home at any time. Mom then released the dove; it circled the sky above a few
times before disappearing over the hills as Iz's happier version of
"Rainbow" accompanied our farewell to Kyle.
Everyone walked to Dad's resting place for a brief prayer and tribute, then
headed to Yuki Sushi to partake in Kyle's favorite food! In the two tatami
rooms (older and younger, as usual!) Joe played the photo slide show he and
Alice put together chronicling our little sister's forty brief years on her
earthly home.
On behalf of our family, I would like to thank those who were able to join
us in this celebration of life, and those whose thoughts were with us. I
know we all did Kyle proud as she is deserving of the loveliest tribute we
can give her. Also, special thanks to Ken and Tammy for taking videos and
photos, and Nina Perez for her performance. We are all very grateful that
you took the time and effort to make us feel warmth in these cold, cold
days.
With deep appreciation,
Jim (Joe, Alice and Mom)
Dear family:
As you know, the memorial service for Kyle took place yesterday. It was a
beautiful tribute on a beautiful Sunday, and filled with sadness and joy,
tears and smiles. Yet, today seems to be the more heart wrenching for me.
The adrenaline that sustained me, Joe, Alice and Mom the past two weeks as
we prepared through long nights for the special event is long vanished,
carried away by the white dove along with our last farewell to her. I am
left drained and alone, empty saved for the broken slide show of life with
Kyle playing in my head, and the panging in my heart...
Only the music of Eva Cassidy and Israel (Iz) Kamakawiwo'ole singing
"Somewhere over the Rainbow," as if only for me, salve for the dull ache
where out little angel left us. The two distinctively styled performances
accented the memorial. Unknown to me only weeks ago I have since learned
that they both died young as well; but the music lives on, now and forever
bringing tearful comfort and Kyle's laughter with each heartfelt note and
word.
"The Rose" was also sang by all at the service as it was a favorite of
Kyle's. She practiced hard and performed at a music class she took in
college. Nina Perez, Alice's close high school friend, and a classically
trained singer performed the beautiful "Pie Jesu" by Andrew Lloyd Webber --
another piece of kyle's favor found in the collection. Nina's voice soared
above the entire valley below as it stirred our hearts.
Kyle's resting place is nestled on the top of Rose Hills overlooking west
and the entire valley that, on a clear day, reaches all the way to the
Pacific Ocean. It is within a short walk from Dad's place, which can be seen
to the left with Skyrose Chapel as the magnificent backdrop. The service
took place in front of a gurgling fountain/waterfall. Colorful floral
arrangements with tropical accents lined the fountain, and a special
heart-shaped wreath made of red roses and carnation was place above her
niche wall framed by white canvas screens behind. (The occasional wind gust
wreaked havoc and blew them down several times, but was finally tamed with
the help of Henry, Jeremiah and Tammy and a generous helping of duct tape!)
Clear bowls of seashells and candles lined the steps leading up to Kyle's
niche.
After the never-perfect effort to set the scene as captivating and serene as
possible, the small gathering of 17 family and guests assembled in front of
the picture frame of a happy and smiling Kyle taken at Joe's wedding. I said
a few words of welcome, then invited Uncle Daniel up to open with a prayer.
I then recited Psalms 55: 6 & 8, "I said, "Oh, that I had the wings of a
dove! I would fly away and be at rest-," "I would hurry to my place of
shelter, far from the tempest and storm." Next I read an allegorical story
about Kyle: "A Rose and a Dove"
"The Rose" was then performed, followed by some words of remembrance from
Alice, Julie and Joe. Julie is one of Kyle's close friends from High School.
There wasn't a dry eye as each recount of life and experience with her was
filled with emotion and tenderness. among the free flow of tears a few
chuckles were elicited by humorous accounts of Kyle as she had a sunny
disposition among friends and family. Of course, there was also a darker
private side to her that I wish so much to have taken the time to know and
share; but such is the folly of human optimism that there is always more
time...
Preceding Aunt Su's lovely blessing was Nina's haunting rendition of "Pie
Jesu." Finally, Mom lead the procession from the fountain area up to Kyle's
niche, carrying the guardian angels; I followed with Kyle's urn, Joe with
her photo and Alice the heart-shaped white basket of the dove. Eva Cassidy's
melancholy "Somewhere over the rainbow" played softly. Charlene put white
dedication roses in a traditional basket held by little Camille, who passed
one to each family and guest. Finally, Alice recited "A Child of Mine," a
poem about how God lends us a child to keep and care for, but may call her
home at any time. Mom then released the dove; it circled the sky above a few
times before disappearing over the hills as Iz's happier version of
"Rainbow" accompanied our farewell to Kyle.
Everyone walked to Dad's resting place for a brief prayer and tribute, then
headed to Yuki Sushi to partake in Kyle's favorite food! In the two tatami
rooms (older and younger, as usual!) Joe played the photo slide show he and
Alice put together chronicling our little sister's forty brief years on her
earthly home.
On behalf of our family, I would like to thank those who were able to join
us in this celebration of life, and those whose thoughts were with us. I
know we all did Kyle proud as she is deserving of the loveliest tribute we
can give her. Also, special thanks to Ken and Tammy for taking videos and
photos, and Nina Perez for her performance. We are all very grateful that
you took the time and effort to make us feel warmth in these cold, cold
days.
With deep appreciation,
Jim (Joe, Alice and Mom)
Absent embrace
Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:02 pm
The pictures are lovely. Surely it was a bittersweet feeling visiting him. On a beautiful summer day surrounded by nature and loved ones, I am also certain there was a deep sense of peace and contentment that is not less
than the many moments prior, but more so tender now in the absent embrace.
Freedom of speech
Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:35 pm
Hello Aunt Wxxx:
Thank you for the heartfelt account of your own experience, and how you feel is necessary in order to be accepted. I empathize with the perceived need and drive to excel for recognition as equals. It is a classic underdog motivation as well as the competitive nature some possess that propel them to greater achievements in light of a challenge. But all too often there are also those who bemoan their fate, deem the gap too great and sell themselves short on what is possible with action and determination.
It is rightful, and even noble, to decry discrimination of the basest forms. However, there is also a danger of allowing ourselves to be polluted in the battle against it. There are certainly outright racism that can not be justified in any way, but I believe that, for the most part, what one feels as discrimination are unintended or even unaware of by the offender. The "privileged" ones by comparison, whether born into or achieved, are no more or less decent than anyone else as a group in general. It is also misleading to paint an "oppressed" group as pure and innocent. In a free society, there is no permanent nor definitive class status across the entire category of relevant discrimination. In any one aspect that defines us, we are considered "above" or "below" that fluid and elusive demarcation. Except for the few luckiest or least fortunate, we are at any given time discriminating AND discriminated by. Where should one's "sympathy" lie between a rich Asian and a poor White? An erudite Black and a blue-collar Asian?
But so often we are only aware of the times we are made to feel inferior (mostly without overt provocation), but blissfully ignorant of what others are thinking and feeling based (fairly or not) by our appearance, demeanor and accoutrement. To this point I say that, on a personal level, it is not others who need to be more aware and sensitive, but ourselves. Especially as a victim of perceived derision, one must guard against the equally infectious sentiments of envy, resentment and anger that, minimally, poisons one's sensibility; but when gathered and fanned by skillful but manipulative persuasion, often lead to destructive blows to a cohesive society in pitting class against class, group against group.
Better it is to channel the energy positively by not wallowing in victim hood, but challenging oneself to be better and more forgiving. And as a society, stop giving handout after handout without expectation, but to re-construct the family unit, instill pride in achievement and education that open doors to opportunities. I have managed apartment units in downtown LA with many tenants mirroring what you described in other areas. It is not because they lack the intelligence or function to do better, but only for growing up rudderless in broken families that only know of the welfare-state benefits, much of which reward (unintended, of course) teenage girls for having more children who never got to know their fathers. It is not oppression they suffer from, but too much tolerance for any behavior that is the root cause for the kids growing up without discipline or values. Their shackle is no longer made of metal or caused by systemic racism, but the decades of good intention showered upon them without responsibility. One can see clearly what happens when a child is spoiled at home who never found the initiative to move out or to make anything of himself. A typical Asian family will never allow that to happen, but when it comes to dealing with inner city problems, somehow that is the overarching solution proposed because it makes one feel good to be charitable. Such is the insidious form of soft discrimination to which money is not the solution, but only through hard-earned pride.
In acknowledging that America is generous and affords more opportunities than anywhere else on earth, why then do you think there are so many out there who are reluctant or even loathe to give her credit? I already conceded that it is far from perfect through my own account of experiencing racism, yet I do not discredit the ideal put forth so long ago in pursuit of liberty, equality (in opportunity and access) and happiness on one's own terms. The great principles America is founded on has not failed -- people have fallen short. And no matter one's disagreement with the leadership, the American flag flies for all of us, conservative or liberal, Asian, Black or White, Rich or poor,...and even for her own citizens dedicated to her demise. When I see the city of Berkeley proposing a ban on military recruiting and burning the American flag, I just have to wonder why their distaste for the Bush administration has to cross into the desecration of institutions that had kept America safe and the symbol of her generosity we all benefit from? If a liberal takes leadership in the White House, does it than make the American flag good and beautiful again, and our soldiers shiny vanguards of liberty once more? If so, these are not vessels of injustice deserving of hatred, but mere innocent instruments hijacked by a disagreeable administration who is the true and only enemy. If not, than what can be more clear in the belief that the blood of each injustice here and abroad from day one of her existence is on the hands of the soldiers, and stains the red stripes on her flag? How can one be proud of America if that is the conviction?
One must not let our personal experience cloud fair judgment. If a minority only measures (or with disproportionate emphasis) a country's greatness on the narrow interest of that particular group in benefit received, and not the breadth of her totality, progression through time nor the highest ideals she uphold, then one's view of America is that of pragmatism, and not altruism for which sacrifice is demanded but rewarded with a heart filled with love and pride. All too many have laid down their bodies for America -- the true patriots who gave the ultimate gift. Do not sully their noble legacy if America is your country. The Universalists shouldn't begrudge someone else more deserving of patriotism, for in denying and denouncing America, his allegiance is as a non-denominational world citizen.
Jim
Thank you for the heartfelt account of your own experience, and how you feel is necessary in order to be accepted. I empathize with the perceived need and drive to excel for recognition as equals. It is a classic underdog motivation as well as the competitive nature some possess that propel them to greater achievements in light of a challenge. But all too often there are also those who bemoan their fate, deem the gap too great and sell themselves short on what is possible with action and determination.
It is rightful, and even noble, to decry discrimination of the basest forms. However, there is also a danger of allowing ourselves to be polluted in the battle against it. There are certainly outright racism that can not be justified in any way, but I believe that, for the most part, what one feels as discrimination are unintended or even unaware of by the offender. The "privileged" ones by comparison, whether born into or achieved, are no more or less decent than anyone else as a group in general. It is also misleading to paint an "oppressed" group as pure and innocent. In a free society, there is no permanent nor definitive class status across the entire category of relevant discrimination. In any one aspect that defines us, we are considered "above" or "below" that fluid and elusive demarcation. Except for the few luckiest or least fortunate, we are at any given time discriminating AND discriminated by. Where should one's "sympathy" lie between a rich Asian and a poor White? An erudite Black and a blue-collar Asian?
But so often we are only aware of the times we are made to feel inferior (mostly without overt provocation), but blissfully ignorant of what others are thinking and feeling based (fairly or not) by our appearance, demeanor and accoutrement. To this point I say that, on a personal level, it is not others who need to be more aware and sensitive, but ourselves. Especially as a victim of perceived derision, one must guard against the equally infectious sentiments of envy, resentment and anger that, minimally, poisons one's sensibility; but when gathered and fanned by skillful but manipulative persuasion, often lead to destructive blows to a cohesive society in pitting class against class, group against group.
Better it is to channel the energy positively by not wallowing in victim hood, but challenging oneself to be better and more forgiving. And as a society, stop giving handout after handout without expectation, but to re-construct the family unit, instill pride in achievement and education that open doors to opportunities. I have managed apartment units in downtown LA with many tenants mirroring what you described in other areas. It is not because they lack the intelligence or function to do better, but only for growing up rudderless in broken families that only know of the welfare-state benefits, much of which reward (unintended, of course) teenage girls for having more children who never got to know their fathers. It is not oppression they suffer from, but too much tolerance for any behavior that is the root cause for the kids growing up without discipline or values. Their shackle is no longer made of metal or caused by systemic racism, but the decades of good intention showered upon them without responsibility. One can see clearly what happens when a child is spoiled at home who never found the initiative to move out or to make anything of himself. A typical Asian family will never allow that to happen, but when it comes to dealing with inner city problems, somehow that is the overarching solution proposed because it makes one feel good to be charitable. Such is the insidious form of soft discrimination to which money is not the solution, but only through hard-earned pride.
In acknowledging that America is generous and affords more opportunities than anywhere else on earth, why then do you think there are so many out there who are reluctant or even loathe to give her credit? I already conceded that it is far from perfect through my own account of experiencing racism, yet I do not discredit the ideal put forth so long ago in pursuit of liberty, equality (in opportunity and access) and happiness on one's own terms. The great principles America is founded on has not failed -- people have fallen short. And no matter one's disagreement with the leadership, the American flag flies for all of us, conservative or liberal, Asian, Black or White, Rich or poor,...and even for her own citizens dedicated to her demise. When I see the city of Berkeley proposing a ban on military recruiting and burning the American flag, I just have to wonder why their distaste for the Bush administration has to cross into the desecration of institutions that had kept America safe and the symbol of her generosity we all benefit from? If a liberal takes leadership in the White House, does it than make the American flag good and beautiful again, and our soldiers shiny vanguards of liberty once more? If so, these are not vessels of injustice deserving of hatred, but mere innocent instruments hijacked by a disagreeable administration who is the true and only enemy. If not, than what can be more clear in the belief that the blood of each injustice here and abroad from day one of her existence is on the hands of the soldiers, and stains the red stripes on her flag? How can one be proud of America if that is the conviction?
One must not let our personal experience cloud fair judgment. If a minority only measures (or with disproportionate emphasis) a country's greatness on the narrow interest of that particular group in benefit received, and not the breadth of her totality, progression through time nor the highest ideals she uphold, then one's view of America is that of pragmatism, and not altruism for which sacrifice is demanded but rewarded with a heart filled with love and pride. All too many have laid down their bodies for America -- the true patriots who gave the ultimate gift. Do not sully their noble legacy if America is your country. The Universalists shouldn't begrudge someone else more deserving of patriotism, for in denying and denouncing America, his allegiance is as a non-denominational world citizen.
Jim
Children are the least of these...
Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:06 am
As my mind has been on little children, as well my continuing interest in politics, I just want to sound off my apparent incapability to understand how we allow legislative process to end the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable.
It has been quite a few years since we last debated on the issue of abortion. But with a number of our family becoming new moms and dads, I just wonder if there is some shift in thoughts about this most gut-wrenching of issues?
As I drove home from Mom's place last Saturday after dropping her off, I was listening to the radio analysis of the "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency," and later caught a rerun on TV, I heard the stark contrast in belief (or lack of it) on when life begins between McCain and Obama. McCain stated simply that it begins "At conception," but Obama admitted to not knowing and "Above my pay grade."
Then there was the news on the Illinois "Born Alive" legislation aimed to protect late-term babies aborted through induced labor that somehow survived, on which Obama was the only member who voted against.
In his defense, Obama cited his concern of the bill jeopardizing Roe vs. Wade as primary reason for his "no" vote. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Obama is not truthful or sincere in making that judgment; neither is it helpful to the discussion for some pro-life people to suggest that Obama is for infanticide because of this vote. I did an extended research to verify the facts and explanations, and found mostly spins on one side or the other.
But sometimes we get lost in our own intellectuality and defense of an idea. Taking away all the intellectual and ideological arguments for and against an issue swirling about in one's own mind or cloistered in a sterile senate chamber, what is one to do when one is confronted with a fully formed new born laying on the floor crying and gasping for life? There is no time to ponder whether it is a human, has viable life, or who has jurisdiction on decisions to make on its behalf. What does one's gut instinct tell one to do? Hospitals have premie wards to take care of even younger babies, why is there such lack of clarity as to whether a living aborted baby is deserving of warmth and sustenance? Is the difference between a loved baby and a discarded one based simply on a whim?
One can argue the language in a bill to protect Roe vs Wade from subversive intent, but how can one equivocate on the right to life of a living human being that is no longer in a woman's body? How can one be in such weak moral position on the right to life as to pass the decision on to the doctor and mother and not forming an opinion on the fate of a child?
It reminds me of when I watch nature shows of injured animals. The narrator or the observing naturalist almost always state something to the effect that "we should not interfere with the course of nature," all the while the poor animal is dying or hunger, thirst and pain. Forget about the grand scheme of universe, what about this specific individual...what can one do for just one to alleviate pain or end suffering? But it also warms my heart to see animals rescued by just everyday people who just knew what the right thing to do was and not think about any greater ramifications.
And what about the practice of honor killings that has shown its ugly face in the U.S. recently? Just because it is a regular practice in other cultures, should one be less hesitant to point out its evil and guard against anyone seeking to take ownership of a child for life and to take life? What is the difference than, if one weeps at the taking of a teeanger's life, and the abandonment of a new born? We punish those who throw their babies into garbage bins, why then are some allowed to die in a hospital room where "Primum non nocere" (First, do no harm) is a sacred pledge? Where does the ownership end?
When I see the helplessness of babies, and hear the laughter of children, I just can't get over why some would prefer snuffing out its life rather than allow it to be born and have a chance at life. No one knows when life begins, and, yes, practical consideration must play a role. But if one can support a position of choice, isn't there also a responsibility to make sure that the suffering of babies is minimized? A form of life begins at conception, but one can set boundaries at the first detection of heartbeat or a fully formed brain or nervous system so as to protect from indiscriminate and barbarous treatment of a nascent human being due to a lack of moral courage or clarity.
Michelle Obama said recently that "that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these." Who is less than a newborn?
As my mind has been on little children, as well my continuing interest in politics, I just want to sound off my apparent incapability to understand how we allow legislative process to end the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable.
It has been quite a few years since we last debated on the issue of abortion. But with a number of our family becoming new moms and dads, I just wonder if there is some shift in thoughts about this most gut-wrenching of issues?
As I drove home from Mom's place last Saturday after dropping her off, I was listening to the radio analysis of the "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency," and later caught a rerun on TV, I heard the stark contrast in belief (or lack of it) on when life begins between McCain and Obama. McCain stated simply that it begins "At conception," but Obama admitted to not knowing and "Above my pay grade."
Then there was the news on the Illinois "Born Alive" legislation aimed to protect late-term babies aborted through induced labor that somehow survived, on which Obama was the only member who voted against.
In his defense, Obama cited his concern of the bill jeopardizing Roe vs. Wade as primary reason for his "no" vote. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Obama is not truthful or sincere in making that judgment; neither is it helpful to the discussion for some pro-life people to suggest that Obama is for infanticide because of this vote. I did an extended research to verify the facts and explanations, and found mostly spins on one side or the other.
But sometimes we get lost in our own intellectuality and defense of an idea. Taking away all the intellectual and ideological arguments for and against an issue swirling about in one's own mind or cloistered in a sterile senate chamber, what is one to do when one is confronted with a fully formed new born laying on the floor crying and gasping for life? There is no time to ponder whether it is a human, has viable life, or who has jurisdiction on decisions to make on its behalf. What does one's gut instinct tell one to do? Hospitals have premie wards to take care of even younger babies, why is there such lack of clarity as to whether a living aborted baby is deserving of warmth and sustenance? Is the difference between a loved baby and a discarded one based simply on a whim?
One can argue the language in a bill to protect Roe vs Wade from subversive intent, but how can one equivocate on the right to life of a living human being that is no longer in a woman's body? How can one be in such weak moral position on the right to life as to pass the decision on to the doctor and mother and not forming an opinion on the fate of a child?
It reminds me of when I watch nature shows of injured animals. The narrator or the observing naturalist almost always state something to the effect that "we should not interfere with the course of nature," all the while the poor animal is dying or hunger, thirst and pain. Forget about the grand scheme of universe, what about this specific individual...what can one do for just one to alleviate pain or end suffering? But it also warms my heart to see animals rescued by just everyday people who just knew what the right thing to do was and not think about any greater ramifications.
And what about the practice of honor killings that has shown its ugly face in the U.S. recently? Just because it is a regular practice in other cultures, should one be less hesitant to point out its evil and guard against anyone seeking to take ownership of a child for life and to take life? What is the difference than, if one weeps at the taking of a teeanger's life, and the abandonment of a new born? We punish those who throw their babies into garbage bins, why then are some allowed to die in a hospital room where "Primum non nocere" (First, do no harm) is a sacred pledge? Where does the ownership end?
When I see the helplessness of babies, and hear the laughter of children, I just can't get over why some would prefer snuffing out its life rather than allow it to be born and have a chance at life. No one knows when life begins, and, yes, practical consideration must play a role. But if one can support a position of choice, isn't there also a responsibility to make sure that the suffering of babies is minimized? A form of life begins at conception, but one can set boundaries at the first detection of heartbeat or a fully formed brain or nervous system so as to protect from indiscriminate and barbarous treatment of a nascent human being due to a lack of moral courage or clarity.
Michelle Obama said recently that "that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these." Who is less than a newborn?
For the fear and love of labels
Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:31 pm
I don't know who is dumber, but I definitely relate to the Jeff Daniels character who got his tongue stuck on a frozen metal pole. "Be curious and try everything once," that's my motto, despite conventional wisdom and fair warnings!
Speaking of wisdom, Wise Yoda, of one true phoenix many parrots follow. When uncertain of a design, just look at the label. As labels infer high style, recitations infer wisdom. Labeling the self as "open minded" ends the search for wisdom, as designating differing opinion as bigoted ends further dialogue. So many fall in love with the idea of "looking at an issue from all sides," but moves no further to a conclusion; for to take a stand is perceived as being rigid and simplistic. For an idea to take life, to be a force of good (or evil), there must be a conviction that is, to be sure -- but only within the context -- absolute. Otherwise, all the observation and analysis of an issue is only an exercise in vanity of one's apparent fair-mindedness.
Just as trees and rocks are incapable of evil, neither are they purveyors of good. They are blameless of inaction if a man falls in the river in danger of drowning; but for fellow men not to take action when fully capable he is already guilty of a moral trespass. I am reminded of a commercial of a group of business people walking through a jungle, and one gets trapped in quicksand. When noted the leader immediately calls for a meeting to discuss the proper protocol and going on and on about the merits of this and that until the poor guy disappeared under the sand. Any rational person would not let this happen, but when it comes to important cultural and political issues that affect real people in real ways, sometimes we fear speaking out for fear of being labeled as judgmental, discriminating or intolerant.
There is a tape of Obama voicing his opposition to the "Born Alive" legislation saying that he didn't want to burden the doctor and mother with another opinion that may be contrary to their original intent of aborting the baby. I found this statement bothersome at the very least on two counts: First, that he assumes or agrees that the primary intent of abortion is to kill the baby and not to free the mother from one; and second, he is neutral on the moral position of whether the baby is allowed to die or be resuscitated. It is apparent that his main concern is not to meddle in other people's business no matter the moral consequence of their action. From what I can gather on his opinions regarding this issue I see no evidence that Obama feels a moral burden of keeping a baby alive even in conflict with his respect for choice. What is worse is if he has a moral problem with such action he apparently felt comfortable not to voice it. The answer to when life begins may be "above his pay grade," but Obama's votes and actions speak to the contrary.
There is a preponderant reliance and enamorment for intelligence in liberalism. I have had a few discussions with liberal minds at the expense of Bush's IQ. Ironically, intelligence is very useful in the fields of science and mathematics where sets of absolute rules are essential in order to built functional theorems. In morality, it is only a tool in support of what is alive in our hearts and the compassion that flows forth, to help us weigh competing interests and find ways to do the most good. Instead, so often we let our intellect get in the way of what is obvious and simple in how we should behave with our fellow men. Absolutes are not the goals when searching for one's moral compass, and mere complexity without wisdom does not equate sophistication. It is when we strive to be well informed, then shut our ears to the noises without, and open our hearts to the voice within that rights and wrongs are revealed. The answer is always there, only we fail to recognize it, to live it.
Ultimately, knowing good is not good enough, but must manifest in action that starts with a belief...do I believe that any baby born alive should be saved? Absolutely! How about you?
I don't know who is dumber, but I definitely relate to the Jeff Daniels character who got his tongue stuck on a frozen metal pole. "Be curious and try everything once," that's my motto, despite conventional wisdom and fair warnings!
Speaking of wisdom, Wise Yoda, of one true phoenix many parrots follow. When uncertain of a design, just look at the label. As labels infer high style, recitations infer wisdom. Labeling the self as "open minded" ends the search for wisdom, as designating differing opinion as bigoted ends further dialogue. So many fall in love with the idea of "looking at an issue from all sides," but moves no further to a conclusion; for to take a stand is perceived as being rigid and simplistic. For an idea to take life, to be a force of good (or evil), there must be a conviction that is, to be sure -- but only within the context -- absolute. Otherwise, all the observation and analysis of an issue is only an exercise in vanity of one's apparent fair-mindedness.
Just as trees and rocks are incapable of evil, neither are they purveyors of good. They are blameless of inaction if a man falls in the river in danger of drowning; but for fellow men not to take action when fully capable he is already guilty of a moral trespass. I am reminded of a commercial of a group of business people walking through a jungle, and one gets trapped in quicksand. When noted the leader immediately calls for a meeting to discuss the proper protocol and going on and on about the merits of this and that until the poor guy disappeared under the sand. Any rational person would not let this happen, but when it comes to important cultural and political issues that affect real people in real ways, sometimes we fear speaking out for fear of being labeled as judgmental, discriminating or intolerant.
There is a tape of Obama voicing his opposition to the "Born Alive" legislation saying that he didn't want to burden the doctor and mother with another opinion that may be contrary to their original intent of aborting the baby. I found this statement bothersome at the very least on two counts: First, that he assumes or agrees that the primary intent of abortion is to kill the baby and not to free the mother from one; and second, he is neutral on the moral position of whether the baby is allowed to die or be resuscitated. It is apparent that his main concern is not to meddle in other people's business no matter the moral consequence of their action. From what I can gather on his opinions regarding this issue I see no evidence that Obama feels a moral burden of keeping a baby alive even in conflict with his respect for choice. What is worse is if he has a moral problem with such action he apparently felt comfortable not to voice it. The answer to when life begins may be "above his pay grade," but Obama's votes and actions speak to the contrary.
There is a preponderant reliance and enamorment for intelligence in liberalism. I have had a few discussions with liberal minds at the expense of Bush's IQ. Ironically, intelligence is very useful in the fields of science and mathematics where sets of absolute rules are essential in order to built functional theorems. In morality, it is only a tool in support of what is alive in our hearts and the compassion that flows forth, to help us weigh competing interests and find ways to do the most good. Instead, so often we let our intellect get in the way of what is obvious and simple in how we should behave with our fellow men. Absolutes are not the goals when searching for one's moral compass, and mere complexity without wisdom does not equate sophistication. It is when we strive to be well informed, then shut our ears to the noises without, and open our hearts to the voice within that rights and wrongs are revealed. The answer is always there, only we fail to recognize it, to live it.
Ultimately, knowing good is not good enough, but must manifest in action that starts with a belief...do I believe that any baby born alive should be saved? Absolutely! How about you?
A case for liberalism
Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:38 am
Now that the kids are off to college, I may simply have too much time on my hands. Having had twins, I know how difficult it is to raise them responsibly while still having to tend to all the other stuff life throws at you. And where is the humility I talked so much about all the while bashing liberalism, a deeply personal view point held by many of you? I realize the narrow and sensitive line between being provocative and simply offensive. I mince no words, but strive to be reasoned. Fortunately there is a delete option for emails. ;-)
If nothing else, I hope you will accept my plea that, even with no audience, the debate continues in me, and that I understand argument for its own sake, or obstinate defense of pre-conceived conclusion in the face of persuasive case for modification are self-inflicting blinders to the clarity we seek. Above all, I try to follow the footsteps of Uncle Ming's quest for wisdom, although his was in the deft distillation of the complicated universal principles into elegant, profound and easy to digest forms; I, in contrast, fear the silence of serenity and, like a lowly moth worm, spin yards of fanciful silk emulating a butterfly cocoon, or the noisy cicada, thunderous one day followed by years of whimper.
Since "Change" is this election's theme, my agreement with this only constant in a world that drifts down the river of divine destiny or random uncertainly, but drift it does. Our gaze held steady but the landscape had already changed, and at the moment before nostalgia the season had already turned...
I was a liberal at one time. What I believed in has not changed much, but the label sure has. For me liberalism was defined differently than how it's interpreted in modern times. It is now less of an ideal, and more of a way.
I was reading an article by Thomas Sowell that even conservatives would love to live in a liberal world. (http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/09/the_vision_of_the_left) Indeed, at the heart of a true American conservative lives the best of liberalism where charity, equality and liberty are principle tenets of our democracy. In essence, what we want to see as a nation of free and prosperous people are not that much different from one another. Where we diverge is when rubber meets the road of implementing those ideals through laws and governance.
The practicing liberalism today, in my opinion, makes several assumptions about human nature that either runs counter or even poses danger to the conceptual liberalism. It all comes down to believing that humans are intrinsically good and altruistic. The first assumption is that need is not greed (only the rich are), second is power of good intention does not corrupt, and lastly, evil stems from a lack of communication and misunderstanding.
I don't think it takes a wild leap of faith to believe that we can never get enough of a free thing. Throw dollar bills into a crowded mall and frenzy ensues. Unless the money dries up, the crowd won't go away and only gets bigger. It is our nature to forego the hard and embrace the easy. A welfare state easily creates an addictive mentality, luring even those without need and incentivize some to cheat to get on the system -- much to the detriment of the truly needy. This dilutes our ideal of charity.
And when was the last time a person or entity in power voluntarily gives up his position unless by law or by force? Short of brute power, how is easier to come to or retain power than through promises of goodies? Sure seems much more attractive than saying you are on your own, work hard and good luck. Whether in government or leadership of the "downtrodden and oppressed," they horde that power by promising more free money and enlarging the welfare state. No matter which party, the government will grow as long as there is demand for money and no self-discipline. This creates two major supporters of practicing liberalism, one the needy the other the power elites, neither has true liberal ideals at heart. It becomes grabs for money and power. The polarization of centralized power and dependency does not promote equality.
Lastly, the assumption that we are no better than anyone else leads to a paralysis to condemn evil, which is the result of moral relativism. The want to offer dictators and despots same courtesy as leaders of free nations, and to believe in their promises from negotiation lead to a false comfort that clouds sharp and timely decision-making, and sacrifices our edge in preparedness to deal with evil actions. Such view is perceived by the heartless as weakness. In times of crisis we need to assume the worst in our adversaries, not the other way. This weakens our ability to preserve and promote liberty.
That is why I am a conservative, not because I reject liberal ideals but I am pessimistic about human nature when tempted with money, power and ambition. That is why we need to exhort and encourage each other to reach for higher morals, and be inspired by the ideals we hold dear, and not pander with promises of more. I want charity to be mostly private, local and personal, so we don't pass our sacred duty to others; I want the weak and fallen to stand up with more opportunities, not endless alms without condition; I want the government to be small and lean, taking care of the important basics of national security, infrastructure and civil-protection, but leave more to the private sectors who are much more efficient and turn our nature of greed in a positive and productive way; I want a strong leadership with clear vision of the world as it is, not as it ought to be, and not blink in the face of evil. That is the realistic and sobering view of our world in trying to promote the true liberal values.
There is no perfection, and people will be people in all their glories and downfalls no matter which ideology or party. Conservatism is not high value, but a practical one, and many subscribers are just as susceptible to the corrosive seduction of money and power. This is not about people, but ideas about people. How we see each other has profound influence on our political leanings. I hope I had made a case for what I believe in.
Long live liberal values with conservative caution!
Jim
Now that the kids are off to college, I may simply have too much time on my hands. Having had twins, I know how difficult it is to raise them responsibly while still having to tend to all the other stuff life throws at you. And where is the humility I talked so much about all the while bashing liberalism, a deeply personal view point held by many of you? I realize the narrow and sensitive line between being provocative and simply offensive. I mince no words, but strive to be reasoned. Fortunately there is a delete option for emails. ;-)
If nothing else, I hope you will accept my plea that, even with no audience, the debate continues in me, and that I understand argument for its own sake, or obstinate defense of pre-conceived conclusion in the face of persuasive case for modification are self-inflicting blinders to the clarity we seek. Above all, I try to follow the footsteps of Uncle Ming's quest for wisdom, although his was in the deft distillation of the complicated universal principles into elegant, profound and easy to digest forms; I, in contrast, fear the silence of serenity and, like a lowly moth worm, spin yards of fanciful silk emulating a butterfly cocoon, or the noisy cicada, thunderous one day followed by years of whimper.
Since "Change" is this election's theme, my agreement with this only constant in a world that drifts down the river of divine destiny or random uncertainly, but drift it does. Our gaze held steady but the landscape had already changed, and at the moment before nostalgia the season had already turned...
I was a liberal at one time. What I believed in has not changed much, but the label sure has. For me liberalism was defined differently than how it's interpreted in modern times. It is now less of an ideal, and more of a way.
I was reading an article by Thomas Sowell that even conservatives would love to live in a liberal world. (http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/09/the_vision_of_the_left) Indeed, at the heart of a true American conservative lives the best of liberalism where charity, equality and liberty are principle tenets of our democracy. In essence, what we want to see as a nation of free and prosperous people are not that much different from one another. Where we diverge is when rubber meets the road of implementing those ideals through laws and governance.
The practicing liberalism today, in my opinion, makes several assumptions about human nature that either runs counter or even poses danger to the conceptual liberalism. It all comes down to believing that humans are intrinsically good and altruistic. The first assumption is that need is not greed (only the rich are), second is power of good intention does not corrupt, and lastly, evil stems from a lack of communication and misunderstanding.
I don't think it takes a wild leap of faith to believe that we can never get enough of a free thing. Throw dollar bills into a crowded mall and frenzy ensues. Unless the money dries up, the crowd won't go away and only gets bigger. It is our nature to forego the hard and embrace the easy. A welfare state easily creates an addictive mentality, luring even those without need and incentivize some to cheat to get on the system -- much to the detriment of the truly needy. This dilutes our ideal of charity.
And when was the last time a person or entity in power voluntarily gives up his position unless by law or by force? Short of brute power, how is easier to come to or retain power than through promises of goodies? Sure seems much more attractive than saying you are on your own, work hard and good luck. Whether in government or leadership of the "downtrodden and oppressed," they horde that power by promising more free money and enlarging the welfare state. No matter which party, the government will grow as long as there is demand for money and no self-discipline. This creates two major supporters of practicing liberalism, one the needy the other the power elites, neither has true liberal ideals at heart. It becomes grabs for money and power. The polarization of centralized power and dependency does not promote equality.
Lastly, the assumption that we are no better than anyone else leads to a paralysis to condemn evil, which is the result of moral relativism. The want to offer dictators and despots same courtesy as leaders of free nations, and to believe in their promises from negotiation lead to a false comfort that clouds sharp and timely decision-making, and sacrifices our edge in preparedness to deal with evil actions. Such view is perceived by the heartless as weakness. In times of crisis we need to assume the worst in our adversaries, not the other way. This weakens our ability to preserve and promote liberty.
That is why I am a conservative, not because I reject liberal ideals but I am pessimistic about human nature when tempted with money, power and ambition. That is why we need to exhort and encourage each other to reach for higher morals, and be inspired by the ideals we hold dear, and not pander with promises of more. I want charity to be mostly private, local and personal, so we don't pass our sacred duty to others; I want the weak and fallen to stand up with more opportunities, not endless alms without condition; I want the government to be small and lean, taking care of the important basics of national security, infrastructure and civil-protection, but leave more to the private sectors who are much more efficient and turn our nature of greed in a positive and productive way; I want a strong leadership with clear vision of the world as it is, not as it ought to be, and not blink in the face of evil. That is the realistic and sobering view of our world in trying to promote the true liberal values.
There is no perfection, and people will be people in all their glories and downfalls no matter which ideology or party. Conservatism is not high value, but a practical one, and many subscribers are just as susceptible to the corrosive seduction of money and power. This is not about people, but ideas about people. How we see each other has profound influence on our political leanings. I hope I had made a case for what I believe in.
Long live liberal values with conservative caution!
Jim
Monday, May 9, 2011
Matters of the heart
Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:35 pm
Being spiritual but limited, the right answer echoes in our hearts but does not flow forth from it. From within there is a million; from without there is one and only. To believe in it is not to say that one has found it; but to not believe, one is never found.
Being spiritual but limited, the right answer echoes in our hearts but does not flow forth from it. From within there is a million; from without there is one and only. To believe in it is not to say that one has found it; but to not believe, one is never found.
First breath of belief
Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:00 pm
Dear Uncle Mxxx:
Actually I suddenly found the type a bit small to see clearly, and Chxxx happened to mention how easy Joe's email is to read because it is in a larger type. So it is my own aging process that is at fault! 
It doesn't surprise me that you found a certain affinity with the gnostic "outcasts." There is a little bit of rebel in you -- and not coincidentally in Exit Clov () -- that harbor a healthy dose of skepticism towards the status quo. It is a quality I highly respect and often times identify with.
) -- that harbor a healthy dose of skepticism towards the status quo. It is a quality I highly respect and often times identify with.Maybe it is that I reside mostly in the murky sludge of intellectual and spiritual uncertainty, what I strive for most in these types of discussion is clarity. And I do believe that knowledge crystallized through debates wide in participants and deep in historical time is as close to certainty and truth as we can achieve.
I also understand that any established thought or orthodoxy still needs constant and rigorous self-examination in order to remain relevant and meaningful to its purpose. In the realms of philosophy and religion, more often than not the dominant thoughts were not brought about through force nor deception, but how it appealed to the majority, fulfilling a deep need; and there is ample wisdom in long-standing traditions that may need adaptation to different ages, but should not have its core value questioned as beneficial to mankind.
And as you so eloquently pointed out, there seldom is consensus with regard to important life issues. Those with differing points of view are entitled to that right...but I am not sure if the establishment of that right entails a need to question or even discredit what the majority believes in. This is the conclusion you often draw -- to be inclusive of all perspectives and not focus on an absolute to the exclusion of others.
Which reminds me of the analogy Joanie drew a few years ago when religion was discussed: That of describing knowledge of god like blind persons describing an elephant. To insist on what one's limited knowledge as absolute truth is arrogant and often leads to tragic conclusions. It is of course more enlightened to acknowledge other view points; but to simply describe the true condition of our limitation does not bring one closer to the truth. It is mere circumstantial in that neither the description nor experience is genuine. It is like writing about or reading about love is not the same as being in love.
I dare say that the experience with God is similar in that we believe in Him because we feel it and not because there is a better argument for or evidence of. We can put together all the combined individual knowledge of God and still be wanting. Even if the entire elephant is resconstructed to the minutest detail, it remains lifeless until one draws that first breath of belief.
At some point, one may fancy being a cloud floating over earth's varying landscapes and seasons. Is is never the same, ever changing and full of wonders. One can conclude that there is no absolute because change is all we see. But what changes: the magnificent earth or a whiff of cloud? God is constant in the mountains, the sea, sunshine and rain; God is black and God is white...everywhere and at all time. I agree with Camimi, I like that!
Love, Jim
A flawed God
Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:17 pm
Dear Uncle Mxxx:
Dear Uncle Mxxx:
Thanks for once again bringing up such interesting but fundamental philosophical inquiries: That of the nature of God.
It is certainly not a small (and, as I see it, growing) number of people in modern times who questions the intention if not ability of God. It is strangely paradoxical that as the standard of living as well as the compassionate perspective of morality rose over the last couple of centuries, the dissatisfaction and anger at God increased in similar proportion.
Instead of appreciating God for the abundance and blessings he receives, modern man progressively assigns more and more credit for the innovations that brought about such plenitude upon himself; and concurrently relegates more blame for his expanding perception of suffering and inequity to God lest it contaminates the perfect self-vision of a supremely intelligent, sentient and compassionate being.
I suppose it was an inevitable progression that as man walked out of the darkness of cognitive instinction to self-awareness and examination, he relied at first on the mystic interpretation of theology to explain the powers beyond his control, and to make sense of his life under that construct. Once man moved beyond survival and tending to his basic needs, his ability to conquer the physical realm and mold it to his service empowered him, which allowed him to pursue the pure intellect and brought about the idea that "God" is no longer a useful commodity because it restricted man's own ideas on spirituality and morality.
At least among the pure intellectuals, the proclamation that "God is dead" was not lamented but embraced joyously. It swept through the affected an initial euphoria of self-actualization but, in time, left them empty and longing. The "Utopia" many thought was in their grasp as they attempted to build (often through destruction) failed time and time again. The "ego" that supplanted "God" enabled justification of means with impunity, which plunged large swaths of humanity and geography into darkness no better than when man was mere "God's puppet."
Now man is at a conundrum of outgrowing the spiritual cradle where he felt comforted unwittingly by his cognitive limitations as well as wittingly the clear directives of God's word. He is presently neither in trust of his inner spiritual compass, nor is he respectful of the God tossed so long ago into the moral garbage bin. Still yet he will not take up the cross for which the state of suffering and trespasses engendered under his watch, but looking towards the heavens with accusation.
The question of free will is indifferent to a rock, tree, animal or even an unaware man. Yet to make sense the concept of -- and more importantly to believe in -- God in its functional element, one cannot escape the necessity of a perfect supreme being, His unequivocal commands and the free will to follow. A "flawed" Creator is an oxymoron, the recognition of which renders pointless the moral discussion of God. It is essentially the creative potency of God residing in the limited (flawed) material realm, and pregnant with the seed of evil (a very apt descriptive of man), that we are the very offspring of this "demiurge," very much god-like but in an imperfect way.
The God that is perfect has a divine purpose, of which is made known to us in tangible teachings as well as intangible inner voices. It is not a matter of boundary that is problematic (without such we are just free, not free-willed), but ultimately the decision we make to stay or cross...the ability of which is a gift of love, and the trial from which that love may be returned.
The God that is perfect has a divine purpose, of which is made known to us in tangible teachings as well as intangible inner voices. It is not a matter of boundary that is problematic (without such we are just free, not free-willed), but ultimately the decision we make to stay or cross...the ability of which is a gift of love, and the trial from which that love may be returned.
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)