電視逼你轉睇Blue-Ray

以前想係32寸睇VCD就起格，諗唔到原來用屋企部52寸睇DVD都開始起小格，睇來60寸以上既你都唔使諗用DVD。

香港既通識科咁教係教壞D學生

Yesterday, while I was teaching a student Liberal Studies on the "ultimate request" of a female teacher at DGS last year, it asked, "Do you think the ultimate request should be done, justify your answer." As we should know, that teacher was asking for universal suffrage, which according to the Basic Law is one of the rights of HKSAR residents. What astonished was that, the answer could either be, yes and immediately or yes but gradually. Put thing otherwise, if you put "No" on your answer sheet, no matter what you have written, you are getting 0 mark. 

I could not help but wonder, what makes writing No an absolute false answer. Could it be the case that one does not believe in the democratic system? Couldn't one, through redefining the concept on universal in articulating a view that one has the right to vote IFF they are mentally fit for voting? As I have been repeatedly suggesting, when one believes liberal studies is a way to be enlightened other than traditional means, one has been deceived by the HKEA. Liberal Studies "IS" like all the subjects in the public exam, in spite of using a sugarcoated cover, it still lacks the dialectical and critical spirit that academies request. I do sympathy local students because they have a choice and the choice must be the opinion of the HKEA.

*By using the same logic when liberal Studies questions if article 23 should be legislated, I believe the only answer is Yes immediately or gradually; however, I hope it is not question begging, but, how many liberal studies teacher is going to teach their students without the hypocrisy? 

愛上終極一家既小雞同小熊。。。。

當你以為TVB既節目係“最差”既時間，原來一山還有一山低。

咁而家曾特首有沒言論自由先？

Recently, some of the columns and reviews in the SCMP have indicated that the speech of Mr. Tsang last week "is" fallible or even despicable because his speech “is” an order to the local judiciary system. As anyone who barely knows contemporary hermeneutics has to conclude that, the same piece of text can be interpret very differently even by identical triplets; not to mention when it was “decoded” by the Pan Democratic Parties that have never asserted anything the government has been doing. It is not very surprising that they have to make a statement today, claiming Mr. Tsang has, once again, made a personal, public, political, administrative and ….  mistake.

Frankly, I just care very little about the debate between whether the stability  of the judiciary system and the development of Hong Kong should be preserved and so on, what I would like to question is, “Does Mr. Tsang enjoy freedom of speeches like everyone does?” Defining the term with common sense, freedom of speech is a self-evidence property that everybody was born with the right to speak freely. So here, if anybody say you “cannot” say something, it simply means that you do not have the freedom to say certain things at certain place and certain time, just for instance people have suggested that because of Ai WeiWei's political speech, he was caught by mainland government and it is a typical case showing that Ai WeiWei has been deprived of making speeches freely.

According to the Pan Democratic Parties, they have protested against Tsang’s comment today, claiming his statement was meant to pressure the court to favor the government; consequently, the speech should not have been made. Firstly, base on the news, Tsang just claimed that there had been a trend in Hong Kong believing that some politicians had been misusing and hijacking the judiciary system for their political means. If we read his comment once again, I cannot see a problem in concluding that Tsang has just stated a fact. For sure, one can say his speech implied a message to the court; nevertheless, since we love to play with the judiciary concepts, isn’t Tsang  “Innocent before proven guilty”? Thus, it is the burden of Pan Democratic Party to prove that other than stating a fact, Tsang was in fact guilty of planning to devastate and manipulate the judiciary system in Hong Kong. I personally am not sure whether anybody from the parties is going to step out to prove the sinfulness of Tsang, it is because, to the them, they have already passed filming the court scene, it is already time to sentence him to death.

Secondly, as I have been suggesting since the very beginning, Tsang, like every of us should be benefit from having the freedom to speak; however, base on the press conference from the parties, I believe Tsang is most likely an alien from Area 51. I remember I had read a book when I was a secondary school student, named Animal Farm, it says something about class struggle resulting that some are enjoying more  from the rest; nowadays, it seems like our system is indicating some are enjoying less from the rest.

I sympathy Tsang and I could not help but wonder, “On what grounds did Tsang is not allowed to make such a speech?” In this case, Tsang has just stated a fact and it has been the Pan Democratic Parties, who interpret Tsang’s speech as a sign in controlling the court, which they lack arguments for validations. Secondly, even if Tsang did mean to say something about the court's ruling, he has the right to do that, it might not be appropriate but still it is the right God has given him. Maybe one might want to say, if Tsang really meant to set directions for the court, he has already broken the basic law. In that case, besides saying Tsang is wicked, it also suggests that we cannot take the concept of freedom of speech as granted, when we use the term we have to stress the boundaries of it rather than using them universally and univocally, like most the parties have been using. So once again, it is a double standard, some are enjoying less because those are working for the HKSAR government.

Sideshow Collectibles Daredevil 夜魔俠 EX

Received the statue early in the morning, it freaked me out that the statue did not fit into the base, after "fighting" with him for an entire day, finally, he was in. 

On the internet, most people love the "idea" of the statue but does not enjoy much about its scale, some collectors even said SSC had been stupid to do that 1:5. To those critics, I think for a 22" statue, 1:5 is the best scale, considering the price being charged as 1:4, making it a 1:5 is a contingent necessity. 

Like most SSC statues, DD's base has been done gorgeously and even the harshest critic should say it is beautiful. (Look at the snail on the grave, the art print clearly suggests DD is standing at the grave of his love one in a rainy day.)

Another thing that I love about SSC's statues is about how they portray the body mass of their character, the back of DD, as you can see cannot be more detail then it can be. 

The EX items, alt head and hand and art print. I think it is good for SSC to give the art print an envelope, it makes me feel more exclusive and the $300 more I pay, worth every penny.

In conclusion, the context the statue has captured is a sublime, the pose and the base is nearly perfect and the only thing that you might want to complain is it might not look univocal with other 1:4-1:5ish statues. 

Price: $259US Both Ex and Reg version is waitlisted sold out. (But as most of the collectors know, in most cases after a week or two they might be up again.)

9/10

心情不爽

今日收到隻DD，放唔到入個BASE入面，呢期好似好多野都唔知點咁。呢件事提醒返我媽媽同我講既野，人生不會日日都係晴天，但係好天既時間就要記住神既應許，到陰天既時間就會明白，神必不放下自己既兒女。1

做野有做野好，讀書有讀書好。

21/5/2011-1/6/2011: Finish packing the roof
1/6/2011-31/7/2011: Finish Dissertation
1/8/2011-31/8/2011: Finish Research Paper 2

After finishing all the paper on hand, quite frankly it is a relieve; having been to any class in this semester makes me feel like I am no longer a student; barely finishing the essays in time constitute shows my priority in life. It is quite obvious that, I enjoy making money as a private tutor because it feels good. On the one hand, my effort are factually changed to statues that I adore; on the other hand, the academic results of students who have taken my lessons have significantly improved. 

Yesterday, James told me that it would be out last session because tuition is a burden of his family; honestly, my feeling is mixed. After chatting with his parents for a while, I believe his decision is the decent one; considering his education background, it is better for him to allocate his resources on other means than struggle for a pass at the HKDSE. 

If I am linking this with God, I will have to thank God because, in the past few weeks I have been too occupied by my work; I went sick for a few days, my time spent on gym has been reduced and I dont even have time for my study. Now, considering the cases on hand, I can consume more time on my study. Furthermore, Kwan has asked me if I want to help him on a summer class, I am tempted, because teaching critical thinking, evidence by my students' performance, is a must nowadays. However, for a 3 months course, I have to plan what to teach my pupils rather than just go there for a class to class base. So, if we are executing the class, it implies that my time will be packed once again.

I love having more jobs because 1 more job means 1 more statue per month but fewer time on my researches. If you ask me whether I concern about my financial well being, it is a lie to tell you I have none. I have been haunted by the shadow that once the company is going to list, which is happening, I will be written off. Positively, I can maintain my life through working harder but like most of us, I would rather have a secured life. Furthermore, being a male private tutor, I have been starting on a false ground, most parents long for a female tutor, which unless I am going to give up my penis, there is nothing I can do. Back to very basic, life is about uncertainty, but as a Christian, I have learnt a lot in these few years, if there is anything God wants to teach me, it should be grasp Him as hard as I can because being secured in a hostile environment is what God desires me to behave.

嘩！原來費格遜咁堅既。

今日睇GOAL.COM先知在費格遜執教的24年當中，一共幫助曼聯奪取了12座聯賽冠軍，也使得曼聯的聯賽奪冠次數由7個增加到目前的19個，一舉超越了曾經的英格蘭霸主紅軍利物浦。


咁即係2年拿一次。Orz

開心既一日，個櫃來左啦！Sideshow DareDevil快D來啦！！！！

等左咁耐，終於等到個櫃來啦，比我想像中靚好多，今日搞完之後就要開始放D野上去。我諗我應該1：4會放係富窗台而1：5同1：1 Bust 就放係櫃同牆板上面。而家期待過多幾日會到既SS DD， 希望同Thanos同Punisher會夾到啦。

唔係好明點解D人係一面倒讚Hot Toys

Today, I have brought home my second HT figure. As I have always said, to me, most figures are without souls, they are toys. However, when I received my second HT product, I could not help but ask, "What is the problem of HT's QC?" The piece I received, using SSC's standard, is at best a distress item, paint has not disturbed evenly on all parts of the figure and some of the paints have already fade off slightly. Maybe someone is going to say, you could return that to HT in 14 days if you are discontent with the product. True, but frankly speaking I am not a trouble person, for a toy, at the price at $160, it is acceptable; nevertheless, after reading a lot of buyers complain about the QC of HT, I have to wonder, should a buyer demand more? I am not sure, because as a statue collector, how something is painted and posed are two of the most important things that constituted whether a piece can be called "grail"; however, comparing with the compliments HT has been receiving, I think those comments are overwhelming. Here I have to stress, I appreciate how detail the figure is, I love how I can change MK VI to a damaged version; but if I am not wrong, the figure is massively manufactured in a factory in China, is it suppose to be having less problem on paintings?  I am not sure, maybe I have been looking something different form a figure, maybe I am just troublesome.

太平館餐廳，野就幾好食，伙計沒禮貌個度死啦。

今日一家人星期日如常食飯，媽媽想食BB鴿，龍華遠就選左白沙道既太平館。記得細過去過一次印象中D野食只係一般。今日再去到，個感覺其實唔錯，D人比我既感覺友善。基本上一路上菜到甜品之前都沒咩事。小熊見人食梳乎里之後我地又叫一個啦，點知：

“吓，8個人叫一個呀？” 個長毛伙計“好好心”咁問我地，驚我地唔夠食，當然呢D人我地只會抱住尊敬既心去睇啦。

到差唔多食完，媽咪拿左表姐比我地D蝦想分比我地，個個好好既待應，一臉輕視既態度係度同另一個人講，“嘩！一分二！”

我想問，我地唔係係你地個地方食野只係係唔阻你地張台既情況分自己D野，真係唔知有咩問題。當然面係人比，架係自己點大家都知，先我問個經理佢地點Train人，之後長毛行過一次，我指佢一次。如果唔係媽媽地阻止，我直接叫佢過來問，睇下邊個無引？

總結

食物：3.5/5 （梳乎里夠大件，雞翼出名係有原因，其它野亦做得不錯，最出色係個魚好好味）
地方：3/5 （幾懷舊）
人事：3/5  （基本上長毛之外，呢D唔怕沒客來既地方算OK）
價錢：大約＄150 1位

小雞對學英文既見解1

作為一個私人補習，我相信有好多家長未必真係知道學生其實需要D咩，今日就講下學 好多家長既種錯覺，就係我要幫仔女搵Native Speaker。先唔講呢種崇外既心態，因為基會上一個只講英文既人英文當然衰極有個限度！ Hey! 大家望一望我先，土生土長香港人一樣不會用中文,一樣死係中文手上。Native or not其實唔重要，反而家長第一樣野要問既係：

點樣可以真正幫到個小朋友。

我認同學英文，學習還境好緊要，好似幾年前我只講英文睇英文節目，我敢講我D尾音都嚇到下人，最小我大學D教授大部份都以為我係ABC。個時真係咩都敢，中國人教授，用緊廣東話照轉人台。但係自從近呢1﹣2年花多左時係Research到，小左同人講，自問講部份真係差左好多。所以簡單D講，如果一個學生，一個星期只係上私人補習先用英文對話，比到盡，一星期講唔多個1000句，Oral進步極有個限度。（唔好講有D學生只係點頭唔講。）再實際D講，口試係HKDSE只係10分，花咁多錢請一個人教小朋友講野，絕對係晒錢晒時間。好啦可能有人講聆聽夠多分啦，請過西人教聆聽實好D啦！坦白講，如果係咁，點解唔叫個學生聽英文新閒？ 聆聽份試題就係呢種模式，上堂既時間講既野絕對唔可以類比成考試既方式，所以同一道理，晒錢。家長要明白，口試同領聽其實根本唔使假手於人，學生一日係花15分鐘讀報紙，15分鐘聽英文新閒一樣可以係呢2方面有好大既進步。

香港既學生最怕其實係睇同寫，呢2樣野先至難。我身邊唔小朋友去左外國好多年，返來一口流利英語，但係得罪講句，如果拿住本文法書睇佢地D英文，一樣滿江紅。個情況同香港人用中文一樣，當我地用母語，我地關心既係想講咩，點講好，好多時就好似而家我咁狂錯文化。但係當我地看一個語言為第二語言既時間，我地關心既係基本既文法，好似中文沒時間性，所以學生可以用錯Tense引起唔小笑話。所以請Native Speaker,最緊要係呢個老師明唔明點樣可以有效解釋中文同英文既分別，呢樣野我反而覺得2文3語既香港人會教得更加好。

總結： 香港學生學英文，先要明白中英之差。呢D野唔一定要外國人先教到，而外國人亦唔一定教得好。

係啦，你地岩我錯囉！

如果1個月前，我同朋大講係有機會既情況我沒賣到我手上既股票，10個有11個會話我係天真雞，D錢夠正常人用一世你都唔賣，有沒人咁笨既。到今日，10個有12個朋友會同我講，如果而家人地同你回購返手上既股票，你打死都唔好賣除非真係好好價。

對呢D講法，我自問真係笑左，係呢一年我學到既係，神要我係沒有安全感中在他身上找到安全感。我自己對樂觀既事返而悲觀，悲觀既事返而樂觀。用返一種反事實既睇法，如果我當時賣晒，唔單單係我今日可能後悔因為原來D股票係更加值錢，我好大可能唔會係今日既我。當時拿住D錢，我想我會日日去玩，點會入中大，又點會去呀關個度做野，又點會出去幫人補習？ 今時今日，我沒人地賣左個D咁好還境，但係最小我搵到自己既價值，做人既目標。

好啦，今日當大家都睇好佢地會用高價回收我地末賣既股票，我反而想問，人地點解要益你？人地D錢打劫返來既？ 你又唔係佢邊個。我呢D都係等比人WRITE OFF既啦。

希望李卓人議員回水比港人

(星島日報    報道)香港大學    民意研究計畫昨日公布最新民調顯示，多位泛民議員評分顯著下跌，近期力推最低工資要加上飯鐘錢及休息日的職工盟的李卓人    ，更是民望「插水」，評分下跌八點三分至四十七點四分，是有關民調進行以來他的最低評分。李卓人承認，社會上有人對他在最低工資上的取態有負面感覺，但指自己只是無良僱主的代罪羔羊，並表示無悔。有學者認為，李卓人在最低工資的取態更令部分中產對他產生惡感，若最低工資的糾紛不能於短期內解決，相信對他的民望會有進一步影響。


記得之前有堆泛淫講要扣師長D人工因為佢地做事不力so so，而家佢自己評分都完全唔合格，佢有沒諗過回水比返我地？個個月袋咁多錢，做埋晒D野又費，吠人佢就叻，重要死撐話自己係受害者，知唔知個醜字點寫呀。回水啦李議員。

豆奶熊既奇怪選擇

Jabba The Hutt 係小熊既至愛，原因，我都唔知點解。。。。。

Liberation Theology: Marching to the true liberationIn

Introduction

Liberation Theology, which roots in Latin America theology, is a bottom up theology that concerns, through the life of Jesus, how theology should be standing by the oppressed or the poor. As most scholars agree, Liberation Theology is contextual, the only thing that shared by all tokens of Liberation Theology is the fact that theologians are dedicated to “liberating” the oppressed.[1] Since she is contextual, if someone lives in Hong Kong desires to follow the footsteps of Liberation Theologians and proposes a token of Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, it is one’s duty to articulate the theology, base on how things has been happening in Hong Kong. Put things otherwise, to do Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, one has to localize the concept. In this paper, I shall first argue the limitations of Contemporary Liberation Theology, second, I shall explain poverty in Hong Kong; third, I shall propose, what we need in Hong Kong is not a strong token of Practical Theology that concerns how we can liberate the non-human; what we need in Hong Kong is a theology that helps the misfortunes to enter the kingdom of God through a critical appreciation.

Part 1: Liberation Theology as means for the ends

Since the 60’s of the last century, theologies, mostly from Latin America have realized there is a huge gap between conventional theology and theology in their context. The gap, as theologian like Gutierrez has pointed out, is between doing theology for human and non-human.[2] Conventionally, theologians have been researching on how we could preach the Good News to a world that is fundamentally physical and where most of the citizens are free agents on religions; however, in a region where most citizens have been deprived from being called agents, Liberation Theology questions, if the traditional, top down theology is making any sense at all, it is because, to those being oppressed, they have been deviated from being something traditional western society defines as human, not only do they not having a choice on religions, they barely have an option as human. As a result, in response to the context, Liberation Theology was born. Most Liberation Theologians, for instance Leonardo Boff has been trying to parallel Jesus Christ as a liberator in articulating his theology.[3] While some other theologians, usually parallel the Exodus with the current era, has proposed that God was liberating the poor and oppressed at that moment.

As most scholars have agreed, Liberation Theology does not come with a univocal form, under different context, Liberation Theology flourishes distinctively. So the only common grounds for different tokens of Liberation Theology can be generally interpreted as:

1.     Liberation Theology is contextual.

2.     Liberation Theology is a bottom up theology that concerns the well-beings of the poor and the oppressed.

3.     Liberation Theology is not a political movement because it has strong biblical grounds.

4.     Liberation Theology is a practical theology (it is about praxis).[4]

Despite the facts that many theologians have criticized the metaphysics and methodology of the theology, I do not think these criticisms have made the theory less appealing.[5] I believe the most critical problem of contemporary Liberation Theologians, they seems letting the means as an end. When one put forward a theology on liberation, why do they try to liberate the oppressed and what ends do they eager to see? We have to be very caution, the premises of Liberation Theology, as I have argued else where is a biblical perspective, it is because by citing and paralleling the life of our savior Jesus, it is highly likely that churches should spend more time in helping those in need. However, the problem of Liberation Theology is that through liberation they just lead those being liberated to become less oppressed, they are not bringing them to the eternality.[6]

Paralleling the life of Moses, when Moses liberated God’s people from Egypt, he did not just liberated them from the wicked Pharaoh, brought them out of Egypt and concluded he has fulfilled God’s request. Alternatively, he was liberating the oppressed from the suppressed and leaded them back the realm of God, a political liberation is just a mean for the religious ends. So did our savior Jesus Christ, it is undoubted, as many Liberation Theologians have quoted, Jesus’ life was to liberate the oppressed; however, to say he has been liberating the oppressed does not capture the explicit desire of Jesus that He wanted to liberate them from being oppressed to the Kingdom of God. Put things otherwise, if there is anything call Liberation Theology, liberating the oppressed is and only is the very first step of the theology, if the theology just cares to fight for vague entities like common good and social justice, it is just obvious to ask, has Jesus literally fought for these ideologies? Or has He, through relieving the tension in the society, guided people to the Kingdom of God? To most theologians, the answer is self-evidence; Jesus through liberating the poor just and only just meant to lead his believers, through repenting themselves they could enter the Kingdom of God. So if Jesus’ ultimate goal is salvation of the afterlife, what grants those theologians the right to proclaim they have to move one step further than Jesus to care only things under the sunlight when Jesus cared so much more about the afterlives than the phenomenal lives?[7]

Undoubtedly, as most theologians would argue, in a region when most of the citizens can barely function a normal life, it is just contingently impossible to preach the Good News to them. It is just like proclaiming the love of God to someone whose entire family has just been abused and killed brutally. Nonetheless, we cannot make ourselves God. It is true that the problem of evil and the injustice among the world are real and factual; nevertheless, it does not necessary mean everyone has to become a liberator of God’s creations. Put things otherwise, I believe the premises of Liberation Theology are sound, we need to bring a message to the poor and oppressed that God is liberating them; however, unlike most contemporary Liberation Theologians have been advocating, following the teachings of Jesus Christ, I suppose, when doing theology, liberation is just a political means for a religious ends The true liberation, as Jesus Christ and Paul has repeatedly suggesting, is to liberate God’s creation from sins so that they can be reunited with God.

If Liberation Theology’s end is to lead those being oppressed to God, unlike some theologians have suggested, there might be regions that do not need Liberation Theology. It is without a question that in every single place on earth, someone, some race, some gender and so on and so forth is going to be treated unfairly; however, it does not means that whenever someone has been treated unfairly, they should have been liberated, thus Liberation Theology is the only practical theology for any city that has oppression. It is because, the term liberation is  very strong, it presupposes someone or something, by using Gutierrez’s words again, is deviated as non-human. However, as I shall argue in due time, there are many cities, for instance Hong Kong, which even some citizens have been enjoying prestige more than the large rest of the citizens; nevertheless, rather than saying theology should liberate those citizens who are considered as less fortune, we have to rethink if the position of liberation is the best contextual way of doing theology. It is because, fighting with the less fortune against the evil entity that basically does not exist in the city might not be contextually necessary; on the very contrary, we can just simply walk with them. Put things otherwise, if Liberation Theology is contextual, I am going to suggest, in a city like Hong Kong, we may not need a radical form of liberation theology. It is because comparing with the harsh environment where most Liberation Theologies have been encountering, one should concluded, yes there are misfortunes in Hong Kong or even imbalances of how wealth has been disturbed; however, rather than liberation, Christian can simply lend these misfortunes a hand and lead them to the Kingdom of God. Thus, we do not need a Crusade in Hong Kong, what we need is bluntly simple: through appreciation, we march to the Kingdom of God together.[8] To sum up, I propose following Jesus Christ’s teachings, the ends of any Christian theology is to lead God’s creation to enter the Kingdom of God, if any theology has lost this focus, it is nothing more than a movement that only use Christianity as means to achieve one’s personal ends.[9]

Part 2: Poverty in Hong Kong

To most scholars in the field of social science, being largely influenced by the work of Marx, poverty is a result of class struggles. The existence of poverty has a deep social impact because the root of poverty is a result of social injustice and oppressions. Base on this agenda, it is not hard to understand why Liberation Theologians have always related oppressions with poverty, for, they believe that the existence of physical poverty is a result of human sin, greed. Following this line of thoughts, in articulating their theses, most Liberation Theologians divide poverty into levels, most importantly physical poverty and spiritual poverty. Unlike how one is going to interpret these terms by common sense, to Liberation Theologians, spiritual poverty is not about choices, it is not about an individual’s relationship with God, it is about how being physically poor, which roots from the evil of greediness, individuals have been ruled out from being able to have a spiritual life.[10] As a result, theologians’ task is not to articulate arguments about why one should believe in God or why believing in God is ethical, decent and so on and so forth, because being physically poor has already determined they are spiritually poor, so every Christian, if they believe God desires one to be spiritually rich, one has to fight against physical poverty.

So when localizing Liberation Theology, the first thing we should ask, rather than what is the definition of poverty or how many people are defined as being poor either absolute or relative poor in Hong Kong, is whether there are physical poverty in Hong Kong that deprived Hong Kong citizens from being spiritually rich. In most cases, critics in Hong Kong argues by using of Gini Coefficient the inequalities among classes have become more serious in years; nevertheless, I have to propose here, these figures, from the increase in Gini Coefficient to the number of relatively poverty in Hong Kong, is and not is the concern of theologians. It is because, to theologians, as I have been arguing since the Introduction, what makes theology, theology is the fact that we are obligated to preach the Good News to non-believers. In a context where human are deviated from human, liberation, fighting for social justice is the only means to achieve the religious ends. Nevertheless, in Hong Kong, where citizens enjoy freedom of religion, it is the obligation of the HKSAR, charity organizations, politicians to deal with social injustice; if churches spend too much time and effort on fighting ideologies, which they think God cares but ignore the most important command from Jesus Christ, one is just treating a mean as an end. [11]

Part 3: Appreciation, Criticism or Critical Appreciation

As I have discussed above, unlike Liberation Theologians have been suggesting, being physically poor does not necessary mean one is spiritually poor, it is because, in a city like Hong Kong, unquestionably, the wealth might have been disturbed unequally; nevertheless, unlike the cases in Latin America, poverty in Hong Kong does not prohibited one from being spiritually rich. At this point, we have to ask, does it necessary mean, Hong Kong does not need any token of Liberation Theology? The answer is both Yes and No. It is because, on the one hand, Liberation Theology has brought out a very profound message from Jesus’ life, Jesus is a liberator; however, on the other hand, as I have been repeatedly suggesting form the very beginning, liberation is and only is a means to a religious ends.[12] Thus, if we want to localize Liberation Theology, we have to be realistic that, Hong Kong is nothing likes Latin America, we do not need radical liberation, instead,  we need to do theology through a critical appreciation.

In Genesis chapter 1, God has proclaimed that everything, which he had made is very good; however, as we all know, human fell, and in chapter 6, even God Himself regretted of creating us. However, we have to ask, isn’t God omniscience? He should have known that we would have fallen before He planned to create us, isn’t it an obvious case of contradiction? Whether God knew that or not or whether how God could regretted is out of the scoop of this paper, the important point that we can learn is that: unlike generally beliefs, God enjoys appreciating, He is critical but also appreciative.[13] To illustrate the point, let’s look at the life of Jesus. In Jesus’ life, it is true that He has been quite judgmental; nonetheless, if we read clearly, it was not rare that Jesus praised and appreciated those who were faithful and innocent. Put things otherwise, in contemporary theology, especially Liberation Theology, they have largely missed out this side of Jesus. Yes, it is true that Jesus has come to liberate the oppressed; however, it is also true that Jesus has sent a clear signal that we should have to appreciate with the good qualities one has, even it is just a very minor one and in many cases these minor things are leading one to heaven.

For instance, in John 20:24-29, it is about Thomas questioning the resurrected Jesus, asking Jesus to let him examine the wounds so that he could confirmed the identity of his Lord.  This is how Jesus commented Thomas, “Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief through they have not seen me.” Compare to others who believed in Jesus’ resurrection without questions, Thomas, rigidly speaking is blasphemy; however, not only did Jesus not scold Thomas, He immediately proclaimed through Thomas misbehaving, what constituted a blessing. To me Jesus has made a critical appreciation, through criticizing Thomas, He first ascertained the good qualities of some sort of faith, second, He illuminated Thomas about how he could become better.[14] It was not the case that Thomas’ questioning was wrong, it was just there might be a better option. Another example can be quoted from the next chapter in the same book, when Jesus asked Peter if Peter has any love for Him. Surely, He can blamed Peter for not asserting Him three times; however, once again, Jesus knowing that there was something good inside Peter, He wanted to enhanced this love to a level that Peter can one day become the foundation of the Church. [15]

I think here one has to understand the two size of Jesus, Jesus is a strict teacher but he is also an inspiring mentor. He does not just criticize you and then leave you with despair and frustration, He always tells you through the good quality of you how you can repent and enter the Kingdom of God. One problem of Liberation Theology, or those who share the root of Liberation Theology is that: they have been viewing things just from a judgmental side, they are critical but fail to be appreciative. They have been very paranoid and sensitive about the things they define as wicked and evil. This standpoint has missed out a very important part of the Good News, you have to be critically appreciative, it might be true that there are flaws in a system, flaws inside human beings; however, it doesn’t mean that the only decent thing theologians can do is to fight against the system, it might be way more effective to amend the flaws through realizing the system’s advantages in itself.[16] For instance, in Hong Kong, as I have argued, the social phenomenon of poverty is factual; however, we cannot parallel the condition we encountered in Hong Kong with those in Latin America for we enjoy freedom of religion. As a result if both liberation and appreciation is biblically corrected, we have to choose, if theology is contextual, appreciation is more suitable and effective to Hong Kong in introducing God to His people.

Part 4: Appreciation Theology in Hong Kong

Granting we should be more appreciative than just being critical, we should then ask, “How does that matter to theology in Hong Kong?”[17] I think at the very beginning, we have to deliberate, generally speaking, what are the good qualities of local churches, which can benefit non-believers in Hong Kong?[18] Here like it or not churches in Hong Kong are rich, many critics accused that conventional churches in Hong Kong care only about the middle classes but have largely ignored the lower classes even these churches considered as “rich”. However, if we evaluate the condition appreciatively, we should come to the conclusion, which, rather than saying it is wrong for the churches to care so much about the rich because they are rich, or even being rich means these group of people have been depriving and oppressed the others, these churches and the prosperous can factually play a critical role in leading non-believers to God.

According to a local research in 2004, there were on average 220000 believers participating at the weekly sermon.[19] The weekly one tenth tribute at a local middle class church in North Point, which has around 300 believers participate at the Sunday sermon is $110000.[20] Suppose, roughly speaking, considering there are 100 believers have followed the tribute, it means each believer is devoting $1100 a month, which is close to the average domestic income of around $8000 per residents per month.[21] By using this rough figure, considering one third of the believers, which is 73000 of them who is earning close to $9000 a month is going to tribute one tenth, which is $900 to the church. Each month, bottom line cases,  Protestants churches in Hong Kong should have received not less than $60 million cash, not to mention the large group of upper middle class who have been labeled as greedy earn many times more than the median income.[22]

Base on this reading, in Hong Kong, churches are rich and they can gather resources in helping non-believers effectively. Next question we should ask, how do we make good use of the money in helping non-believers? I believe many people is going to suggest, like most traditional churches have been doing, setting up social services centers, schools, food banks and so on and so forth for those who are in need. However, I believe, as I have brought out in the beginning, when we are doing theology practically, whenever we are doing social services in the name of God, we can never lost sight of the reason why we have to do that: the only reason of doing that is to let people repent. When we put things like this, churches have to balance out the time and money being used between  physically assistances and spiritually assistances to the non-believers. As a result, practically, granting we have the resources from the prestige and prosperous, in allocating these resources in helping the non-believers in Hong Kong, we should not share the belief that because someone is poor and misfortune, they need the Good News more and only through being a charity the Good News can be preached.[23] 

One can see the differences of methodology between liberation and appreciation theology. To Liberation Theology, being rich is most likely the result of greediness, which is a sin that every Christian has to fight against; furthermore, to lead non-human to the Kingdom of God, one can only do that through liberation, a radical reform, thus, is necessary. However, when we critically appreciate the context of Hong Kong, we should realize the well being of an individual can be a result of God’s blessing or individual’s hard working; and in a capitalistic society, it is unfair to label and parallel those who earns a living legally and ethically as the dictators in Latin America.[24] Furthermore, I propose that, if the well being of an individual is not a sin; we have to make good use of these resources in leading the non-believers to the Kingdom of God. A parallel analogy is, in the book of Acts, there were many rich believers who functioned the church physically, for instance, by letting believers gather at their houses. If, using contemporary Liberation Theological attitude, these believers, who most likely have slaves working for them, were just evil in God’s eyes. Yet, anyone know the Bible should have come to the conclusion, God does not prefer slavery; however, God does critically appreciate them, under that context they have been using their means to achieve the religious ends of the Good News.

Granting what I have been saying is true, I believe through appreciation, local theology should be less critical and judgmental; furthermore, neither we should try dividing local citizens into groups. It is because, the first premises of doing theology: is to let non-believers repent from sins, it is never decent to divide them by classes, genders and races. Furthermore, even if there are inequalities in Hong Kong, we have to be very caution not to fall into the slippery slope that all inequalities are resulted from a single hegemony or only through liberating the oppressed things can be changed. It is because, theology itself cannot create an utopia on earth, the only thing we should do is to preach.

Consequently, in helping spiritual poor in Hong Kong, which refers to someone lacking the passion to God, churches have to send a very clear message to the non-believers that life without God is no life for human and Hong Kong is a very blessed city, there might be inequalities but none of us is going to die because we don’t have food or being executed because we say Donald Tsang sucks big. Though the social securities is not perfect and we do not have a comprehensive medical and retirement system, most importantly to Christianity, all citizens in Hong Kong enjoy freedom of religion that permits one to choose what one believes, which means being spiritual poor is a matter of choose, it is not determined. So, considering the resources on hand, rather than spending a lot of money on charity, fighting for inequalities and social justices. Churches should have used their resources in preaching the Good News. Certainly, in some cases through charity, Good News is spread flourishingly while in some cases mass media can be an effective means. To sum up, what I have been stressing here is that, the target of the resources is neither the physical poor nor the physical oppressed, it is because Hong Kong is a city where all citizens have freedom in choosing their religion and the only religious ends for Christianity is to lead these non-believers, rich or poor, through any possible means to understand the grace and love of our Creator.

Undoubtedly, someone might object what I have said because I might have been too optimistic, living in Hong Kong is not as good as I have said and I am just fortunate not seeing the dark side of city. Here, as I have been arguing since part 2, I assert there are inequalities, I assert there are misfortunes; but I deny there is non human, there is spiritual poor like Liberation Theology has defined. So if there is anything we need to liberate, it is not the system itself, it is about the value we share in Hong Kong, the value that believing in God is useless. Here one might further argue, “This is exactly why we should fight against Capitalism, which is the root of atheism.” As the paper is about theology, I just want to discuss in brief how we should react to this line of thoughts. I suppose, following the Bible thoughts, criticisms without an answer is just vain. So it might be true that Capitalism is limited, but it might also be true that this is already the best contingent system for Hong Kong..[25]

As a result, following Jesus’ teaching on appreciation, appreciating the good quality of local churches, being having the resources to preach the good news in Hong Kong, a place where citizens’ spiritual poverty is not a result from physical oppression, is contextually effective and appropriate. It is because, if we adapt Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, we might have ignored the fact that theology’s goal is to liberate the spiritual poor but not the physical poor and theology is also about appreciating virtue, for instance, we can interpret the prosperous are willing to share with the poor rather than just oppressing the poor.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have argued how contextually, Liberation Theology is not a preferable way in conducting theology in Hong Kong. Still, there are a few things that worth to be discussed. At the very beginning, as I have argued in this paper, my primary concern is the spiritual poverty in Hong Kong; nevertheless, as a Christian, it is our obligation to ask, what is Hong Kong Churches’ role in a globalized world? For instance, just talk about Mainland China; it might be the case that spiritual poverty is a result of physical poverty, since we are that close to China, is there anything local theologians should do or what is the role of local theology concerning China? Furthermore, as I have argued appreciation is very important to theology; nevertheless, since the enlightenment, the world has become more judgmental than ever. I just wonder, if being critically appreciative rather than strongly critical can be a unique quality or fragment of Christianity. All these things demand and answer and I believe it is theology’s work to examine them so that God’s will can be served.

Reference

Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)

Christopher Rowland ed., The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007),

ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1

Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922

liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>

---

[1] "liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>

[2] Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922>

[3] Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)

[4] ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1>

[5] The criticisms come from a lot of angles, in the very beginning, some have questioned whether borrowing terms like class struggles from Marxism is appropriate. Furthermore, some have questioned if theology is all about the oppressed, it has reverse discriminated those who are of well beings. Last but not least, some share the worry that a contextual reading of theology leads to relativism. As I have to agree, all these concerns make sense; however, I shall explain in due time, the limitation of Liberation Theology.

[6] A fair reading to contemporary Liberation Theology is that: they have always included repenting from sins and re-union with God into their agenda. However, having something in the agenda is a thing, executing it is another. As Liberation Theology prior practice to truth, it is just a logical inevitable that when doing the theology, most of the concerns have been focused on liberation. Nevertheless, what I desire to discuss in this paper is that: it might be true that in a context like Latin America, it might be decent; however, in a city like Hong Kong, granting we follow the premises of Liberation Theology, we may not need a radical liberation and I shall examined the thesis in due time.

[7] Undoubtedly, it is very possible that, as Liberation Theology claims to be contextual, under certain circumstances, a theologian can proclaim, liberation in context is a must and they should have moved a step further than Jesus. I assert, it can be the case, but one has to be very caution, as it is clearly stated in the Bible, non-believers and those who do not repent is evil in God’s view, so liberating non-human to human and leaving them as the sinner in God’s eye can be even worst then leaving them being non-human. By using a slimily, it is like one brings them out from the dictator but directly gives them to the devil. Furthermore, it is not a straw man, because rather than criticizing it is the case, I believe it is worthy to point out, that, base on the metaphysics of Liberation Theology (like it or not there is always a metaphysical side of anything.) there is a danger that one will  confuse the means of liberation as the ends.

[8] Here I am suggesting both the Kingdom of God on earth and in the afterlife. I believe this is just different side of the same coin. I suppose most Liberation Theologians have the same mindset like I do. Their original premises, there is no church when there is no human; however, as I have argued above, in most cases, Liberation Theology slight becomes a political movement more than a religious movement when theologians have been fighting against the injustice and lost the track that, the only goal of theology is to lead people to God. So the means can be liberation or appreciation but the ends must be leading them to the Kingdom of God, if we can work with God in this life, great, but it is just not the end of the story.

[9] As a believer, I believe only God is able to judge the intention of an individual. I do not think and do not dare to accuse any theologians, who have spending their effort or even their lives dedicated to theology, as someone who is fighting for his/her own benefit. What I mean to suggest here, if we read from the history, a good intention, even a biblical based intention, can turn ugly when one becomes think their words are God’s words. In this paper, rather than being a critic criticizing any particular theologian guilty of something, I am trying to give warnings. It might not have happened but it is something we should be as careful as we can.

[10] To Liberation Theologians like Gutierrez, it is appropriate to say that in dividing poverty, he does not mean there are different ways in interpreting poverty. Being spiritually poor is a contingent consequence of physically poor.

[11] However, one should not take this as churches accept and tolerate inequalities; on the very contrary, in a society where justice can never be done, we have to put faith in the afterlife, as the Bible has clearly stated. So theologians have to put priorities and as I shall examine in due time, if one wants to fight against inequalities, liberation is neither the necessary or effective means in Hong Kong.

[12] Granting the premises of Liberation Theology true, if lives are excluded from the salvation because of dictatorship or other political repressions, a radical form of theology, which concerns how to better off the environment so that individuals can have a choice could be the only option of theologians. Certainly, conventional theology might beg to differ because they believe God is in charge and these unfairness can be viewed as tests of God. Here, I am not going to settle the dispute about which way in doing theology in that context is biblical, what I am interested in is: Hong Kong is not a place like Latin America, as a result, even churches are more keen on participating politically, we cannot detached ourselves from the religious ends.

[13] God being appreciative is very different from God being Love. Conventionally, human being is defined as something not worthy of God’s loves but the benevolent God mercies us and made us dear because He loves us.  Saying God appreciate mankind does not necessary mean we are worthy or we can be righteous by one’s effort. On the very contra, to say God is appreciative suggests that God does not just criticize our wrong doing, if we do something good, even just a simple act, God appreciates. When we interpret God this way, it is inevitable for us to question, do we need to try to appreciate the other like God has been doing?

[14] Here Jesus has been made use of the foundation good quality of Thomas, though a second level faith, but still something Jesus treasured.

[15] More examples can be found:

[16] I believe most scholars, especially those critics who have been accusing the flaws of Capitalism would disagree my saying that there is something intrinsic good of Capitalism; however, it is not important to my discussion here, because what I am pointing out is that, in some systems, liberating and fighting against the system is decent while under certain circumstances, using amendments is a more effective means to achieve the religious ends. It is because, if we believe theology is contextual and theology’s goal is to find a way to preach to Good News to every individual, an effective means is what we should look for. If we just being stubborn claiming we have to defeat the social injustice, sexual discrimination and so on and so forth so that we can create an utopia on earth, plainly, it is just unrealistic and just violate the basic principles of Liberation Theology.

[17] Here I have parallel a critical spirit as the essence of Liberation Theology. As I have argued in this paper, being critical to different social values can be contextually right; however, as I have argued, it is not the case in Hong Kong.

[18] In this essay, I shall concern the theology of Protestant Churches only.

[19] http://research.hkchurch.org/stats/stats_5.htm

[20] 懷恩浸信教會，周會報告。

[21]Census and Statistics Department, social data: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/
products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/social_data/index_tc_cd_B1130301_dt_latest.jsp

[22] It is an over simplified version of how much protestants churches is receiving in Hong Kong. What I mean to show is that, being rich is not evil, to run a church and other social services, we need capitals and this is something we already have and should not be deviated and labeled as evil.

[23] Unlike Liberation Theology, I do not believe there is priority between poor non-believer and rich non-believer, it is because in Hong Kong, as  I have argued, there is poverty, there is misfortune; but, not much of these people can be defined as the spiritually poor by using Gutierrez’s definition.  It is because some citizens in Hong Kong are enjoying less than the median; however, it doesn’t make their journey to the Kingdom of God harder. As Jesus has also suggested in Mark 19, “It is simpler for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a man with much money to go into the Kingdom of God.”  Put things otherwise, we have one mission and one mission only, leading non-believer to the Kingdom of God, in Hong Kong when everybody shares this opportunity, saying the poor deserves more time and effort is just reverse discriminating the prosperous.

[24] I do not mean poverty is a result of laziness, there are many reasons for poverty in Hong Kong. As I have suggested above, some are intrinsic and some are extrinsic. What is important here is that, in a city where we have a fair judicial system and relatively fair opportunities among gender, races and ages, it is paranoid and injustice to call those who get rich off as oppressors.

[25] I am open to a system that is better than Capitalism; however, as far as I know, Capitalism, though has it weakness is already one of the best workable systems we can use in Hong Kong. It is pretty much like I have criticized the limitation of Liberation Theology but I have to agree, in a region like Latin America, Liberation Theology is basically the best contextual theology theologians can advocate.

用幾錢買玩具先算敗家？

呢個問題我想左好耐，我本身係一個基督徒，算係半個學者，對我來講，我好緊張一D好簡單，但係又唔可以being taken for granted既ideologies。

今日我反問自己，一個正常人，3個半月用左10萬係玩具 （SS，HT 同LEGO）上面，算唔算好敗家？當然，正常人會問，你身家有幾多先，好似我身邊既人，買樓當買菜，買林寶堅尼當買1:6，10萬銀首期，入油都唔夠啦。但係我自問，同呢D人沒得比，我一個月既收入唔算多，（做私人上門補習有幾好賺？）咁用錢法，過唔過份？

我身邊既人，好似我太太，我媽媽，重來唔會話我買野，佢地明白，咁大個人會做就會做，講係完全沒用既。起初我買SS，HT同LEGO，我心入面其實只係想間屋擺得靚D，如果我係要理性化自己用錢既方法，裝修買擺件用10萬，相對我自己既裝修費，單位既價錢，都係那一句唔算多。

成件事，我諗我要問既係，點解我要買呢D野？呢D野係我身上代表左D咩？諗左一日，其實就好似以前細過用幾十萬玩Sports Card, 一年前用10萬打機，玩玩具比到我心零一D安慰。對一個基督徒來講呢樣野係一個悲哀。如果一個人玩玩具既原因同我一樣，呢個都係一個悲哀，因為人生既價值，人生既快樂，如果健基係一D外在既價值上面，生存既意義就係咁？

我地會搵好多原因比自己，好似呢D係童年回億，呢件野好靚唔買唔得。但係呢D都係借口，正如大部份哲人講 love or hate does not exhibit propositional attitude, 沒需要去justify。

最後，我敗唔敗家？我敗，因為我呀媽自己唔用，做仔既反而大花筒。今日係媽媽節，呢個後醒希望來得合時。人了解自己錯咩就要改，我今個月既目標，玩具既Budget，同自己之前預定既一樣，＄8000, 如果多左我就放棄想買既野。希望大家都同家人開開心心，唔好玩玩具一件開心既事，玩到同家人面阻阻。

小談係香港玩 Sideshow Collectibles

大家都知我係一個新手，不過我自己就鐘意周圍搵自己鐘意既人，以下既野唔算心得，只係一D感覺

首先正如大家講，玩SS呢條路唔易行，因為SS出名大件，Destroyer 26寸都比人話小那星咁Q細件。香港一間1500尺既屋，發水得7成半，你要Display重要問過你身邊既人，買左放係倉又係浪費，所以只可以選擇來買。但由於SS既生態，（先講REG）你唔訂就算有現貨都好快去晒，你訂，係唔使比運費重有10﹪ off，一件＄300既Statue, 中間可能平左$50-$60。但係正如上文所說，係香港玩SS，錢唔係你最大既敵人，地方先係， 但係最大問題係過左之後想搵返，基本上只可以：

A：上EBAY
B：上FORUM

先當件貨沒升值，好似我買返 PF Ms. Marvel 同 Wolverine，同原價一樣，但係用USPS既運費就最平都要＄80，一來一回，本第係香港＄2000 HKD 買到既變左要 ＄3000。（再一次assume件貨沒升到，Gambit PF就係一個好既例子）所以係香港玩SS，我覺得心態好緊要，鐘意就要立即買， 放棄左就以後唔好再諗。


到EX， 係SS買EX係我看來係化算，原因如下
1：你做得COLLECTOR比多 ＄30買件 EX，感覺良好
2：加加埋埋其實唔會差好多，計一次比大家睇

MOVIE THOR PF EX ＄325，運費＄40 ＝＄365
MOVIE THOR PF REG 漫畫店訂 ＄325＊90﹪ ＝ ＄292

以以上既Statue來講，就咁睇差別係＄70，但係先招返Reward Point $16，即係＄54， 你拿件貨100﹪要坐的士返個度我當比多＄10，即係係漫畫店訂REG同SS訂EX差＄40。但係一件係REG，一件係EX，邊樣抵，我答你唔到。

不過大家要留意一點就係好多SS既野其實EX既display係真係靚好多，好似LSB，我試過display，有nameplate係靚超多，唔好講特別例子好似CA PF EX。

下次再講返追入以前既GRAILS

多謝老豆既老闆

有錢人點解要益你？上市？點解要預你一份？你又唔係佢邊個邊個。對第一代既老闆，我心入面只有感激，唔係多得佢地好心幫助，我都唔可以係呢度講，我生活比上不足，比下真係十分有餘。不過到左第三代手，我好明白我地呢D應該比人write off既人既存在係完全沒必要既。

Undoubtedly, 我相信有咁既爺爺都有叫既孫，我相信第三代對佢既員工一樣好，不過最慘我地唔係佢地既人，而係第一代員工既仔，老豆重要死左25年，理性上佢點解要益我地？

聽到呢D消息，不禁又驚又喜，點到好，媽媽講得好，我地拿左9萬出來，佢地養到我地肥肥白白，重想點？

人心不足

今日回想自己既人生，諗來諗去其實真係沒咩野可以投訴，最多可以講既就係爸爸早死同埋有精神病。但係數返自己有既野

1：我係一個基督徒

2：我有一個好錫我既屋企 （由媽媽，老婆，呀叔，到呀哥家姐）

3：生活叫比上不足，比下有餘

4：工作係我選擇而我又做得開心既

但係當收到一D關於未來既消息，心入而又不禁出現不小既想法，好似未來會唔會再好D？會唔會有機會去外國讀書？買晒自己鐘意既玩具？

但係反問自己，明天到我選擇嗎？聖經好明確咁講出誰主明天，不是老闆，不是校長，亦不是我學生D家長，而係神。人係有weakness of wills，但我求神叫我明白：

1：我要多感恩，因為我係一個人心不足既人，我要多數算神既恩典

2：我要多放手，因為我係一個沒信心既人，我要把主權比返神

呢D野講出來易，做出來難，但係如果你連講都費是，想都費是，會唔會去試下做？