Date: 27th December 2009

Weather: It WAS still sunny when I came (but I've since been pretty much stuck indoors)

Mood: Daddy said he's bringing the family to Disney Land, but I'm the only one who has seen the ticket, while all the others continue to remain in much disbelief.

With regard to the little dialog I've included at the beginning of the post, it was actually a very small fragment of a conversation I had with one of the fellow guests, like me, who had been invited to the service/musical at Mai's church. He's still searching, and as for me, having already found the answer, I just felt so glad that I no longer have to go through that dilemma anymore.

That dialog was something that he, as a student, has had gathered from the philosophy students when he did it last time. And amongst them, it had been claimed that most of them were atheists, so that pretty much explain their "picking bones out of an egg-nature" I guess.

Anyhow, I've got a set of theory to that myself, and I'm pretty much convinced by that. The answer is such question should not have existed in the first place. It's just a matter of playing with words. If I were to put it blatantly, it's just a plain childish ploy to uproot the shallower faith (not saying that mine's very deep already though). Childish because the ploy has got no meaning in itself.

God created men, but men created their own languages. So why do we spend so much time dwelling in something which had only been brought into lights because of the flaws in the digging tools. Imagine an excavation project in one of the ancient rock structures, and an amateur archaeologist accidentally chiseled off an important part of the uncovered rock, leaving a scar. Then the other archaeologists are all asked to research on the significance of the scar during the historical period of the occurrence. Make sense? Yea, perhaps non-sens-ical. Ask again, "is it possible for God to create something that even Him Himself is not capable of moving." Then how about answering this question for me first, "If nothing is impossible, then isn't impossible itself impossible?" Confusing? Try again. When one starts claiming that nothing is impossible already, isn't impossibility itself already an impossibility? How do you achieve impossible when nothing is impossible, but yet impossible itself is not possible? Dwell on this. Some people call it the oxymoron, but having a recognised term does not make it in any sense more sensible huh?

Wow, I've managed to come out with another entry again!