the one about moving houses

the thing about packing your stuff up and shifting places is you are forced to confront years of memories, be it the sweet times that's gone or the skeletons in your closet.

and in my case, it is 19 years of memories i was sifting through in the past few days. i thumbed through diary entries written through secondary school (before blogging was in vogue) and jc, and looked through photos of those times.. and just laughed at myself for being such a silly little girl.

it is only when you see the life before and after Christ came into the picture that you truly grasp the impact He made.

i don't know if i said this before but one of the things about christianity that amazes me is the way God gives us things even when we never asked for them, or when we cannot do anything significant back for Him.

you see, because i am raised in such a culture that when i go up to someone for something, i am always forced to think of something i can offer the other party as an incentive for them to help me. when i was facing my council interview, i was told "don't tell them what they can do for you. tell them what you can do for them." in a job interview, it is always "what is it that you can do for us? why should we hire you?"

it's never "what do you stand to gain from us?" or "what can we do to help you?" (apparently you seldom get that line even in the service sector.)

so now Christ comes along and gave us love. He gave me confidence, self-esteem and the promise of love and life. all these without asking me to do anything drastic.

i guess what is truly so amazing about God's love is the simplicity of what He asks us to return unto Him: our love.

the little things in life

a little update just for the sake of it.

it's the holidays now and i know it's all the more reason why i shouldn't be ignoring this blog. but lately i've been busy with a newly undertaken web project that actually will pay me, and it gets pretty demanding to the extent that i haven't got much time for blogging. ask my lj friends and they can verify that.

and to get us into the festive cheer:

- bethesda cathedral's christmas musical, "coming home"; 23rd and 24th december evenings, @ 1930h sharp!

yours truly will be performing in the choir and a rollicking good time is guranteed mainly cos the script is really funny.. that's all i'll reveal for now. =)

tickets (distributed free) are required for entry so do pm me if you are interested. =)

---

that aside,

in current affairs, aussies enraged cos singapore is meteing out punishment to an aussie drug trafficker.

as a disclaimer: i love australia. really i do. hate the sin, not the sinner yes?

seriously, anyone who is able to reason logically should be able to figure out that given singapore's really tough laws, you cannot possibly expect to be let off easily for a crimminal offence as serious as trafficking drugs.

drug trafficking is not a problem easily solved with just a slap on the hand. furthermore, if we didn't let the americans off, what makes the australians any different? but that, of course, is besides the point.

to put things simply, what the singapore government did was to convict a drug trafficker, not an australian. the case would be the same whether the guy was finnish, dutch, indian, or whatever nationality. so any arguments that are remotely nationalistic can be flushed down the drain.

a law is a law is a law. you break it, be ready to bear the responsibility of your actions. it's as simple as that.

sometimes people can get so uppity about the slightest things without stopping to think whether it is really worth their time and energy to make the big fuss.

if more people put themselves in the shoes of other people, they suddenly find that not everything is about you, yourself and... you. maybe things will be so much easier if people thought about things such as "will the australian government have done the same thing if roles were reversed and a singaporean was caught trafficking drugs in australia?"

unfortunately, not everyone is willing to spare the precious time required to come up with an answer to the above question. it's easier to rage about what a bitch the singapore government is.

cue: empty vessels making the most noise.

the frog jumped out of the well

my initial reaction to the new paper article about dawn yeo (i only just caught up with the hoo-haa because of my now-over exams. to put it in the apostle paul's words, "rejoice!") was "why the heck must xiaxue be so catty about people being prettier or more popular than she is?"

out of curiousity, i broke my personal promise to myself and visited xiaxue's blog. see, journalistic objectivity prompts us to get both sides of the story. and lo-and-behold, miss cheng dispelled my annoyance with a full length explanation of what really happened. it was one of the few times when i could exit xiaxue's blog without smirking.

i am not going to comment on how dawn yeo is unnaturally pretty thanks to plastic surgery, or debate about why plastic surgery is right/wrong/whatever. that has been talked to death and for goodness sake, give the girl a break. in fact, she's doing mankind a huge favour by being eye candy for us, you know.

what appalled me more was the unprofessional approach that the journalist who wrote that story in tnp took.

because as a person who studies journalism, the basic rule of thumb is: you. simply. do. not. make. up. quotes. ever.

i'm striking the new paper off my list of prospective career options. actually, sph is officially off my list of prospective employers. press freedom aside, the fact that editors can let something as serious as fabrication pass through to the print center...

let's just say that maybe because i am a girl who has yet to really see the world, i have idealistic expectations of this world that are on the verge of being burst.

i have a couple more things to blog about. maybe will start writing after i actually recover from this outrage and remember what it is i wanted to say. haha.

the nearly end of exams post

just yesterday night...

me: oh yeah, do keep me in your prayers. i've hit the spiritual desert again. =(
friend: i already did.

"let me find You in the desert,
till the sand is holy ground"

i really don't know what to say, just that i feel oh so loved. =)

that lightbulb question

How many churchgoers does it take to change a light bulb?

Charismatics: Only one. Hands are already in the air.

Roman Catholics: None. They use candles.

Pentecostals: Ten. One to change the light bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians: None. God has predestined when the lights will be on and off.

Episcopalians: Eight. One to call the electrician, and seven to say how much better they liked the old bulb.

Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians: We chose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the light bulb. However, if you have found in your own journey that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb and present it next month at our annual l light bulb Sunday service in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life, and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Baptists: At least fifteen. One to change the light bulb, five or six professors to search the Bible for authorization and then two or three committees to approve the change. Oh, and some faithful women to make a casserole.

Lutherans: None. Lutherans don't believe in change.

Methodists: A whole congregation. One to change the light bulb, and the rest of the congregation to be sure that he doesn't backslide.